text:
How buddha came back to his human consciousness if consciousness and fabrication ceases after release
QN 1: After complete cessation of consciousness, how did the Buddha come back to human consciousness?
If he can come back, isn't it not a complete release?
And that state is just like the Dimension of Nothingness, or the Dimension of Neither Perceptions nor Non--perceptions. So if craving again develops, then there may be chance of becoming.

**QN 2:** And is it possible to have complete release through jhana only by ceasing craving, fabrication etc without gaining insight of nirvana.
QN 3: Buddha stated in many suttas that five aggregates are not-self; but as human being we do require idea of self (identity or ego) and will power (self-esteem). [Like, "If I try I can learn it or do it etc"] . Is there any sutta where buddha talked about such healthy ego? [Here ego word does not mean pride, conceit etc but Identity.]
Note: Buddha avoided such type of questions because this stop us from direct knowing, but I am asking due to curiosity. But do reply for third question.

Edit: I was not asking about 'self' or 'no-self'. I was asking because it's help us psychologically and even Buddha used to call himself Bodhisattva (Who thinks about well-being of everyone and has compassion towards all.) before awakening because it's remind us about our path.
"I updated my last question because I think it was creating a little confusion."

Please see this answer for the question How to interpret “cessation”? This should answer your first question, at least.

After complete cessation of consciousness, how did the Buddha come back to human consciousness? If he can come back, isn't it not a complete release?

The Pali word "nirodha" (often translated as "cessation") does not necessarily mean "destruction".
Also, in the teaching about the stopping of Dependent Origination, the cessation of consciousness refers to the cessation of a consciousness arising from ignorance. It does not refer to the stopping of a consciousness unaffected by ignorance. Refer to SN 22.53.
Other suttas that explain consciousness does not end with enlightenment include SN 12.44, MN 148 and the end part of MN 38.

And that state is just like the Dimension of Nothingness, or the Dimension of Neither Perceptions nor Non--perceptions. So if craving again develops, then there may be chance of becoming.

The above is irrelevant.

And one more question I would like to ask: Buddha gave a not-self strategy

Bhikkhu Thanissaro book on "not-self strategy" is wrong and has been debunked many times.

to deal with five aggregates by considering them as not-self

Regarding aggregates as not-self means there is no selfishness therefore automatic goodness.

but as human being I think we do require a healthy ego of will power
  and idea of 'self' (Like, "If I try I can learn it or do it etc"). Is
  there any sutta where buddha talked about such healthy ego?

Ego is irrelevant. To have a healthy mind requires having morality.
This said, the Buddha refers to the healthy ego in a 'conventional' manner in the Attavagga.

Note: Buddha avoided such type of questions because this stop us from direct knowing, but I am asking due to curiosity; but do reply to my second question.

The Buddha did not ignore any right proper questions. Bhikkhu Thanissaro book on "not-self strategy" is wrong and has been debunked many times. It is best ignored. This will result in not troubling Buddhists by asking confused questions about it. Bhikkhu Thanissaro's heretical book on "not-self strategy" is a misunderstanding of the sutta SN 44.10, where Vacchagotta,using self-view, asked two questions: "Do I have a self".  "Do I have no self?". Both of these questions was wrong because both of the questions assumed the existence of an "I".

I read Attavagga as you mentioned and there is a verse. "One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain." Here, Who is controlling what (5 Aggregates) ? Now you may say thats illusion or wrong view etc. But still it needs to be controlled. And please read comment I made on ChrisW answer. :)

i already posted the Attavagga is in the language of "convention". It does not say there is a real self that controls. As for ChrisW's answers, these are not the words of the Buddha. The Bikkhuni sutta was spoken by Ananda, the Buddha;s attendant. Regardless, "conceit" is not a "self" but just an idea of self.

I exactly don't know what you mean when you say 'convention'. Do you mean for language purpose only? But I have added my answer at the bottom of my question.

"Convention" is the language & understanding of the ordinary, world; that there is a self & the self controls the mind.

QN 1: After complete cessation of consciousness, how did the Buddha
  come back to human consciousness? If he can come back, isn't it not a
  complete release?

Well, there is such a thing as clinging aggregates. According to this answer, for a living arahant, when ignorance is uprooted, this breaks dependent origination, that ends craving, clinging and suffering. In the chain of dependent origination, clinging aggregates would also cease.
The living arahant according to Iti 44, attained nibbana with fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa), meaning the non-clinging aggregates are still functioning like glowing embers, although the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased.
Parinibbana is when the non-clinging aggregates stop functioning. This is nibbana without fuel remaining (anupadisesa) according to Iti 44.
So, the answer to this question is that upon attaining nibbana, the Buddha experienced complete cessation of clinging consciousness, but non-clinging consciousness remained functional for the rest of his human life. The five aggregates that are referred to in dependent origination is clinging aggregates (including consciousness), and not non-clinging aggregates.
In other words, upon nibbana, an arahant has complete cessation of clinging.

QN 2: And is it possible to have complete release through jhana only
  by ceasing craving, fabrication etc without gaining insight of
  nirvana.

No. It's quite possible to cling to the pleasures of jhanas and get one's mind stuck, as seen in MN 138:

And how is their consciousness stuck internally? Take a mendicant who,
  quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful
  qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the
  rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and
  keeping it connected. Their consciousness follows after that rapture
  and bliss born of seclusion, tied, attached, and fettered to
  gratification in that rapture and bliss born of seclusion. So their
  mind is said to be stuck internally.

And the sutta continues about the higher jhanas.

QN 3: Buddha stated in many suttas that five aggregates are not-self;
  but as human being we do require idea of self (identity or ego) and
  will power (self-esteem).

In a sense, you can use the idea of self in a skillful way (as long as you have not dropped self-view) as shown in AN 5.57 below:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
  kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
  resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

Also, please see Attakari Sutta.

What do you mean by non-clinging aggregates? Any sutta where I can read about it.

@roheet Please see the question on difference between aggregates and clinging-aggregates? and the sutta SN 22.48. The five aggregates are form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations. When one clings to them, they are called clinging aggregates. When one does not cling to them, they are simply called (non-clinging) aggregates.

Thanks ! I have voted your answer but I can't accept it because there is still some personal doubts which needs practice and experience to clarify it.

Consciousness is an element among elements conceived & perceived in the world; arises & ceases in the world.
When talking about cessation of perception & feeling it is said;

How many ,conditions are there for the attainment of the theme-less awareness-release?"
"There are two conditions for the attainment of the theme-less awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes and attention to the theme-less property. These are the two conditions for the attainment of the theme-less awareness-release
"There are three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes, attention to the theme-less property, and a prior act of will. These are the three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release."
"And how many conditions are there for the emergence from the theme-less awareness-release?"
"There are two conditions for the emergence from the theme-less awareness-release: attention to all themes and lack of attention to the theme-less property. These are the two conditions for the emergence from the theme-less awareness-release."https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html
Citta asked him a further question: "Now, how does emergence from the cessation of perception & feeling come about?"
"The thought does not occur to a monk as he is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling that 'I am about to emerge from the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I am emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I have emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling.' Instead, the way his mind has previously been developed leads him to that state."
"[...] Citta asked him a further question: "When a monk is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, which things arise first: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, or mental fabrications?"
"When a monk is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, mental fabrications arise first, then bodily fabrications, then verbal fabrications." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html

On this ground it can be asserted that the duration of the cessation attainment is determined not whilst being percepient of Nibbana but due to a prior act of will and no later than entering.

having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, I wasn't the all, I wasn't in the all, I wasn't coming forth from the all, I wasn't "The all is mine." I didn't affirm the all.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html

In regards to this it can be asserted that the knowledge spoken about is associated with a meditative attainment on the treshold of supramundane, seeing with wisdom leading to destruction of taints.
Then it can be held that the determination for the duration is an act of will, an occurence in the world, it is included in the allness of the all and isn't made outside of it.
This interpretation holds that emptiness, undirected and theme-less awareness releases are classifications of the cessation of perception & feeling release by which taints are destroyed, are attainments on the treshold of the destruction of taints and the difference is in how they are apprehended in dependence on the perceptions that one developed culminating in the unsurpassed release.
Here from Thanissaro's footnotes to sn41.6;

Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.
  This is a pali sutta only interpretation favor by commentary.

I assume this is close to the expression of Mahasi Sayadaw's "Manual of Insight" and still a popular burmese/sri lankan theravadin expression and maybe analysis.
As i ubderstand it;
Suppose 'x' is thought of as a single element, a whole of many sub-elements perceived & conceived in and by itself, X within X is known to be an autonomous self-sustaining, self-creating & self-directing sub-system in and by itself.
Suppose the sub system X, is called thus within Itself because it is not the only element to be known as there is another element which isn't part of the sub-system X, call it Y, which can be known as a truth because cessation of perception is discerned in X in dependence on it.
Knowledge of Y can thus appear as an element included in X if an element of perception within has been directed to cessation.
The factors for arising, persistence & the cessation of the perception of X are included in what is X and are not Y.

So what you want to say in short. And please also reply second question in your answer.

2nd question is similar to this one, link to my A https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/39133/8527

After thinking more i think one can say in short that there are conditions leading to cessation occurence in the world and there are conditions leading to the arising of consciousness in the world. The arising of consciousness is not determined while percepient of cessation but due to a prior act of will.

What are your views on Buddha "Raft Simile" why he used it.?

@roheet You could post that ("What are your views on Buddha 'Raft Simile', why he used it?") as a new question instead of as a comment.

@ChrisW Ok friend.

Is there any sutta where buddha talked about such healthy ego (Like, "If I try I can learn it or do it etc").
Perhaps the Bikkhuni sutta.
See for example here and here for a description of what "pride" or "conceit" are.
I think that's equivalent to what people often understand as "ego".
The Bikkhuni sutta (AN 4.159) says that conceit ("ego"?) can be useful on the path, even though it's eventually to be abandoned.

This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

I understand/paraphrase that as, "He practices with such-and-such result. Why can't I?" That's a comparison, therefore a conceit. But it's a constructive or beneficial comparison, e.g. to learn by comparison with someone else's (superior) practice.
I must add that this sutta was spoken by Ananda, not the Buddha.

Actually there's a lot of doctrine about "trying" -- that's "effort" isn't it, so see doctrine about "Right Effort" -- see also Vīrya and so on.
See also "faith", conviction, confidence (saddhā).

That's my point. :) When you see how your action can make others suffer and yourself. You decide "I will try to be a Good human being." You don't use 'I' just for conventional purpose only but it also gives you a will power and helps in psychological way to gain control on self (or action). And 'pride' comes under 5 defilement in buddhism so instead of pride, It should be done for well-being.

Perhaps the opposite i.e. the other aspect of "I will be good" is Buddhist doctrine about "remorse" -- if you do evil you should feel remorse, but "skilful virtue" should condition a "lack of remorse" -- see What is the basis? But I'm not sure how much or whether that needs to be egocentric. An observation about "effort" or "virtue" as conditioning some effect may be generally or invariably true, even without having to think in terms of "my effort" or "my virtue".

The type of a temporary ego or self I was pointing to is answered in this sutta.
@dhammadhatu


text:
Unintentionally killing insects when playing sports and running
I jog everyday and teach children how to play basketball. There are some insects on the path where I jog and on the basketball court, and I’m sure we unintentionally kill a few of them. We live in a place where there are lots of trees and forests so it would be difficult to get rid of bugs. Am I violating the first precep?

Some suggested that playing sports on a ground wherein I would inevitably kill is negligence. But what is the difference between that and a monk who takes a walk outside? Surely playing sports is a greater risk of killing. But if that monk is to truly avoid killing shouldn't he be exercising in his room instead?

Formally the Vinaya, or Buddhist monastic law, states this about killing:

pli-tv-bu-vb-pc61There is no offence if it is unintentional; if (he is) not thinking; if he does not know; if he is not meaning death; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer.

In particular, notice that ignoring the knowledge that there are living creatures on sports grounds is also intentional and therefore harmful if one proceeds to practice sports and thereby kill insects. How to resolve this?
One observes that small creatures flee the sun. Because of this, one can skillfully choose a time for sports when small creatures will be safe from harm. Children will understand this logic, therefore adults can as well.
Intention therefore affects skillful means. If we play sports intending entertainment, then stadiums emerge along with massive environmental impact, death and destruction. Yet if we exercise for harmony and coordination, then the "need to kill" evaporates and our relationship with the world decreases suffering skillfully. Even a monk walking meditation can intend to walk peacefully without stomping and therefore with less killing.
But cowering inside afraid to step out and kill an insect is also wrong because it is self-mortification. Bodies need exercise for health. Children need physical practice that promotes teamwork. So a balance for all enters consideration.
Unskillful choices generate suffering. Skillful choices end suffering.  The path revolves around the skillful.

AN3.69:9.1: There are these three skillful roots. What three? Contentment, love, and understanding.

A monk taking a walk outside, there is also a chance of him killing  insects with this activity. Playing sports poses a bigger risk of killing bugs but if a monk truly does not want to kill he would have to exercise at home right?
Another day to day activity where one would inevitably kill is driving. Buying vegetarian food wherein pests are killed during the process, even during the transportation of these food insects would be killed as well. What is the difference between these activities and playing sports?

Good point. Edited post with more discussion about scope of intention. Thank you.

Of course, if you are observing the first precept, you must not intentionally kill those insects on your jogging path i.e. if you see them while jogging, you should avoid them.
On the other hand, on a regular jogging track that many people use, you would find that insects and other animals would start to avoid this path and find other routes.
If you unintentionally killed an insect on a regular jogging track, that's ok.

But if that monk is to truly avoid killing shouldn't he be exercising in his room instead?
In context that monk might not have a room: monks are "homeless".
And monks might be discouraged from playing sports at all: walking might be their only physical exercise.
Perhaps monks are expected to be more virtuous -- more careful about not taking life -- than laypeople. Monks won't dig the ground for example, nor kill plants, which laypeople do -- see this commentary about Killing ...

Intention is an essential factor here. For example, if a bhikkhu only intends to sweep a path but accidentally kills ants in the process, there is no offence because it is not deliberate.

... and Destroying Vegetation ...

Bhikkhus who live in tropical forest monasteries constantly have to protect both the jungle and themselves. When paths are overgrown, snakes and other dangerous 'creepy-crawlies' can be trodden on — and bite back! There also may be a need for firebreaks. One way that forest monks cope with this is a daily routine of sweeping the paths. However they are not allowed to dig or clear the land.

It doesn’t matter if they are homeless. My reasoning is, if the monk needs physical activity and wants to avoid killing. He will exercise in a small space where there are no insects. I think the reason that they are not allowed to dig in that context is to prohibit  them from damaging living plants.

If you go to exercise your legs or do walking meditation in the open air you are likely to step on some beings.
It can be unintentionally caused by not looking where you put your feet or due to an inability to see.
If it was due to carelessness, then that carelessness is blameworthy much like drunk-driving ie.
If one is lost in unwholesome thought and steps on some insect, one is essentially reckless and not concerned about the consequences of one's action as they might affect others.
If however one was blind and went to do walking meditation, unaware of the stepping on bugs one is then blameless. An incident like this is in the pali texts.
If going for a run you would see the road in front covered in bugs and worms, would you still run on it seeing that you would inevitably kill?
Some would out of compassion for those beings do something else.
It seems like we are generally uncomfortable knowing that for certain we are going to step on bugs, that enough to not go through with it.
However if we think there is a chance of not stepping on other beings in the process we roll the dice.
It's akin to this analogy;
Drunk-driving is bad because one puts lives at risk, therefore all driving is bad if and to the extent that it puts lives at risk.
As i see it we do not say that all driving is always bad but some circumstances are certainly seen to be more or less unjustified and blameworthy.
If a monk jumps of a high cliff and unintentionally lands on someone's head he is not blamed for killing but he is blamed for jumping from that cliff.
We should think about actions more as long run evaluation of this or that resolve rather than focusing on the short-term.
Ie; what are the consequences of this if performed 100, 1000, 10000 times.
It is on this basis society blames drunk driving in that even if nothing bad happened it doesn't matter as it is a variable circumstance.
I hope you get the sentiment i try to communicate, there is a reason why we don't see monks running around playing sports in general.

One incident like this in the pali text is in the origin story associated with Dhp 1 -- Thera Cakkhupala -- https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001

I am sure when he first said it he just meant we shouldn't go around killing each other.  Over the years it has come to mean an ants life is worth the same as a humans.  Both are valid depending on your point of view.  It is just some words.  Interpret it how you wish.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why did Buddha use the 'Raft Simile'?
The Raft Simile says, in part:

I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas. [MN 22]

Why did Buddha use the 'Raft Simile'?

This Pali Canon parable is one of the two most popular images among Mahayana students (the other one being the parable of toys used to lure children out of the burning house).
The other shore is Nirvana and the raft is the concepts (of Dharma). The concepts are used to get across, but the final destination is beyond concepts. Rafts don't move on dry land, sun rays have nowhere to fall if there's no ground. Concepts don't hold in Emptiness, they have nothing to hang on.
The whole point of Buddha's teaching is liberation of mind. The entire appearance of samsara with all its problems and sufferings is a giant self-perpetuating complex of concepts. Our problems are concepts in the space of relative definitions. To be a master of concepts rather than victim of, is what the practice is all about. Being a master of concepts one can create and destroy concepts as needed, without being bounded by them.
Unbounded, vast, limitless, open - is the other shore. The raft of Dharma is a vehicle, not the destination.

The sutta is about not arguing about the Dhamma rather than not practising the Dhamma.

Here, bhikkhus, some misguided men learn the Dhamma—discourses,
stanzas, expositions, verses, exclamations, sayings, birth stories,
marvels, and answers to questions—but having learned the Dhamma, they
do not examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. Not
examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they do not gain
a reflective acceptance of them. Instead they learn the Dhamma only
for the sake of criticising others and for winning in debates, and
they do not experience the good for the sake of which they learned the
Dhamma. Those teachings, being wrongly grasped by them, conduce to
their harm and suffering for a long time. Why is that? Because of the
wrong grasp of those teachings
Suppose a man needing a snake, seeking a snake, wandering in search of a snake, saw a large snake and grasped its coils or its tail. It would turn back on him and bite his hand or his arm or one of his limbs, and because of that he would come to death or deadly suffering. Why is that? Because of his wrong grasp of the snake. So too, here some misguided men learn the Dhamma…Why is that? Because of the wrong grasp of those teachings.
Having crossed and arrived at the other shore, he thinks: 'This raft,
indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, laboring with
hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not
lift this raft on my head or put it on my shoulders, and go where I
like?'
No, venerable sir.
'Suppose I were to haul it onto the dry land or set it adrift in the
water, and then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, it is by so doing
that that man would be doing what should be done with that raft.

So the above teaching does not say to destroy the raft. Nor does it say to carry the raft on your back as a burden (via arguments or trying to convert the unconvertible). It simply says to set it adrift or haul it onto dry land (for others to use).

The Translator's Introduction by Ven. Thanissaro suggests an explanation.

The first section of the discourse, leading up to the simile of the water-snake, focuses on the danger of misapprehending the Dhamma in general, and particularly the teachings on sensuality. The discourse doesn't explain how the offending monk, Arittha, formulated his misapprehension of the Dhamma, but the Commentary suggests a plausible scenario:

"Here the monk... having gone into seclusion, reasons as follows: 'There are people living the household life, enjoying the five pleasures of the senses, who are stream-winners, once-returners, and non-returners. As for monks, they see pleasurable forms cognizable via the eye, hear... smell... taste... feel (pleasurable) tactile sensations cognizable via the body. They use soft carpets and clothing. All this is proper. Then why shouldn't the sight, sound, smell, taste, and feel of a woman be proper? They too are proper!' Thus... comparing a mustard seed with Mount Sineru, he gives rise to the pernicious viewpoint, 'Why did the Blessed One — binding the ocean, as it were, with great effort — formulate the first parajika training rule (against sexual intercourse)? There is nothing wrong with that act.'"

Regardless of how Arittha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary's suggestion makes an important point: that just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful. The Buddha himself makes the same point in AN 2.25:

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred..."

Having established this point, the discourse illustrates it with the simile of the water-snake, which in turn is an introduction to the simile of the raft. It is important to underline the connection between these two similes, for it is often missed. Many a casual reader has concluded from the simile of the raft simply that the Dhamma is to be let go. In fact, one major Mahayana text — the Diamond Sutra — interprets the raft simile as meaning that one has to let go of the raft in order to cross the river. However, the simile of the water-snake makes the point that the Dhamma has to be grasped; the trick lies in grasping it properly. When this point is then applied to the raft simile, the implication is clear: One has to hold onto the raft properly in order to cross the river. Only when one has reached the safety of the further shore can one let go.

Part of the sutta is about not arguing (e.g. having grasped the Dhamma wrongly people then argue about it -- the watersnake simile).
I think the raft simile is slightly different and is about taking logic or an analogy too far. There's an example of that -- carrying logic too far and so arriving at a wrong conclusion -- in the Commentary which the translator quotes above.
If I can try to clarify my point by inventing an even more obvious or more absurd example, that might be, "Because Dhamma is 'like a raft' then I can literally jump into this river without getting wet and drowning" -- but no, that isn't true, that would be taking the analogy too far.
So the Buddha uses words and analogies to explain what he wants to explain. Don't take that message too far, wrongly adding logic to use it as a proof of something else, even something contrary.
I expect there are many possible mistakes of logic or interpretation. One of them is described in the parable of the blind men and the elephant in Ud 6.4:

Those blind people who had been shown the head of the elephant replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a water jar.' Those blind people who had been shown the ear of the elephant replied. "An elephant, your majesty, is just like a winnowing basket.' Those blind people who had been shown the tusk of the elephant replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a plowshare.' Those blind people who had been shown the trunk replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a plow pole.' Those blind people who had been shown the body replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a storeroom.' Those blind people who had been shown the foot replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a post.' Those blind people who had been shown the hindquarters replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.' Those blind people who had been shown the tail replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a pestle.' Those blind people who had been shown the tuft at the end of the tail replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.'
"Saying 'An elephant is like this, an elephant is not like that! An elephant is not like this, an elephant is like that!' they fought each other with their fists.

I think it's good to ask, knowing what we know, whether it's true that an elephant is like a jar, like a basket, like a plowshare, etc.
I think the answer is that it both is like that and isn't like that.
This parable too is about ("sectarians") arguing, but it's also about incorrectly grasping or attaching to a specific view.

The one who dwells in the Dhamma according to the sutta below, is the one who uses it as a raft to cross over.
The one who is keen on the Dhamma's study, description, recitation, pondering but does not cultivate inner tranquility of awareness, does not dwell in the Dhamma. This person is attached to the raft and is not using it to cross over.
However, the one who studies and ponders the Dhamma, and also cultivates inner tranquility of awareness, dwells in the Dhamma. This person uses the Dhamma as a raft to cross over.
From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):

Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
  bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
  the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
  Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
  dwells in the Dhamma?"
"Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
  answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
  dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
  day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
  himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
  who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
  Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
  internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
  on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
  his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
  dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
  answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
  neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
  who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
  who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
  Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
  out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
  the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
  Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
  to you."

The teachings contain advice for unenlightened persons for e.g. to think "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do" from AN 5.57. By contemplating this, they will abandon their evil deeds.
This helps them on the path to enlightenment. But to an enlightened person, this advice is not useful, as they have completely abandoned self-view, conceit, craving, clinging and the three poisons of greed, aversion and delusion. The enlightened person needs to eventually abandon the "I am the owner of my kamma" view too. It was useful on the path, but no longer useful after crossing over. This is an example of how even the teachings are eventually abandoned upon crossing over.

I think that's what mistake most of us are making. Without putting it in to practice we try to understand it through our logical reasoning only. But it should be put under practice and tested through all directions and experience direct-knowing. And Buddha always mentioned to practice jhana. :) What do you think friend?

@roheet Pondering or dhamma-thinking maybe considered yoniso manasikara or "appropriate attention" if one relates one's experience to the Dhamma, but it still requires the inner tranquility of jhana, to overcome the five hindrances, otherwise stream entry is not possible.

you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas. What do you understand by last line.

@roheet The teachings contain advice for unenlightened persons for e.g.  to think "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do" from AN 5.57. By contemplating this, they will abandon their evil deeds. This helps them on the path to enlightenment. But to an enlightened person, this advice is not useful, as they have completely abandoned self-view, conceit and the three poisons of greed, aversion and delusion.

@roheet The enlightened person needs to eventually abandon the "I am the owner of my kamma" view too. It was useful on the path, but no longer useful after crossing over. This is an example of how even the teachings are eventually abandoned upon crossing over.

Thanks. You actually replied to my previous question regarding healthy Idea of self(temprory). Please check

You need to do good things, good because they are means to an end, are supports for crossing. Having reached the end these good things are still a means to an end but that for another person and not for this good person who by means of these good things has gone to the end and crossed over.

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


text:
Shouldn't we care only "What I think" instead of "What I + Others think"?
Our own thoughts make something wholesome or unwholesome. Not what other's think. So, is there a need to care about what others think regarding a certain thing?
We can do good for others, but they might think that we do something bad for them. Isn't it their responsibility to think in a wholesome manner?
The title of this question should be "Should we care about what others think?", but I found a related question here:
Should we care about what others think?
However, it doesn't have any answers regarding this case (karma).
Kind regards

We should not harass other people, including with what is wholesome. The suttas say:

Enduring patience is the supreme austerity, Nibbāna is supreme say the
  Buddhas, for one gone forth does not hurt another, nor does an ascetic
  harass another. Dhammapada 184
Drawing in the mind’s thoughts As a tortoise draws its limbs into its
  shell, Independent, not harassing others, fully quenched, A bhikkhu
  would not blame anyone. SN 1.17

If we act with a wholesome intention, this is not wrong. But if we discover others are not interested in our wholesome intentions, we should refrain from harassing them & care about what they think.
However, if we unintentionally offend them with our wholesomeness, we have done nothing wrong. As Jesus said: "Do not give pearls to swine; do not give the children's food to the dogs; they will turn to attack & trample upon it".

I think it can be said that if our behavior is spotless, guided by true knowledge & due analysis, then in that case we do not need the external approval.
It is like knowing the truth, being in agreement with others is a different variable circumstance.
I sometimes think about the training and the relating to others along these lines; 'surely the principals of the training do not depend on other people because the principles of the training would not change if one was the only person around'.

The Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65) says:

So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

I think that implies you should care about and understand, as well as "know for yourself", what wise people think.
I think there's a lot of mention too, in the suttas, about social harmony within the sangha -- and its being important to have good or spiritual friends -- I think that might be what's meant by "the holy life" (brahamacariya):

Not so, Ānanda! Not so, Ānanda!
“Mā hevaṃ, ānanda, mā hevaṃ, ānanda.
Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.
Sakalamevidaṃ, ānanda, brahmacariyaṃ, yadidaṃ—kalyāṇamittatā kalyāṇasahāyatā kalyāṇasampavaṅkatā.
SN 45.2

We also have precepts (e.g. to be harmless). They too are motivated by what other people think:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
Dhp 129


text:
what is the difference between Anapanasati and the Satipatthana
studying the two, and reading the list of the 4 tetrads, in the Anapanasati - first breathe and body, second studying the two, and reading the list of the 4 tetrads, in the Anapanasati - first breathe and body, second feelings. third mind, fourth dhammas.
in the Satipatthana it is the same. I have read Analayo's book on Sati a number of times as well as many other books - sat contemplating both practices,
is it the fact that in the Ana they suggest which dhammas to sit with? where in Sati it is much greater? 4nt 8fp, awakening factors....

Anapanasati and Satipatthana are essentially the same thing. The Anapanasati Sutta says "mindfulness of breathing, developed and cultivated, fulfils the four foundations of mindfulness" https://suttacentral.net/mn118/en/bodhi#sc23

I recall Gil Fronsdal answering this very question in one of his Foundations of Mindfulness courses, saying that they are the same thing, though I don't recall the details, nor the specific talk.  Might want to listen to them anyway, for he's such an eloquent teacher! https://www.audiodharma.org/talks/?search=foundations+of+mindfulness

Anapanasati and Satipatthana are essentially
the same thing. The Anapanasati Sutta says: "mindfulness with breathing, developed and cultivated, fulfils the four establishments/foundations of mindfulness".
However, in the scriptures, there are two scriptures with some different respective explanations, namely, the Satipatthana Suttas (MN 10 & DN 22) and the Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118).
The instruction in the Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) is repeated in many other suttas, such as the excellent MN 62 and in most of the 20 suttas in the Ānāpāna Saṃyutta. The Ānāpāna Saṃyutta says in a number places (such as SN 54.8 & SN 54.11) the Buddha practised Anapanasati.
The Satipatthana Sutta is merely a list of various dhammas often illogically compiled together. It appears not possible the Buddha spoke the Satipatthana Sutta for various reasons, such as:

Including the Five Hindrances in the 4th satipatthana (because the hindrances are abandoned prior to the start of practice)

Including painful feelings in the 2nd satipatthana (because pleasant feelings rather than painful feelings arise from the prior calming of the breathing) and;

Referring to the impermanence of experiencing the 4 noble truths in the 4th satipatthana (because an enlightened person has a permanent discernment of the 4 noble truths).

In short, it appears the Satipatthana Sutta does not follow the right sequence of cause & effect as explained in AN 5.159 as the right way to teach the Dhamma.
Bhikkhu Sujato appears to say the Satipatthana Sutta was a fraud (Piltdown), as follows:

Some of the recent Burmese recensions have re-incorporated this entire section from the Dīgha Nikāya back into the Majjhima Nikāya, and even acknowledge this provenance by re-titling it the ‘Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta’. Perhaps a better title would be the ‘Piltdown Sutta’. This canonical innovation is extraordinary. While it is common for a word or phrase to slip between the cracks, I don’t know
any other place where a large body of text has been moved, obviously in
fairly recent times. No doubt this editorial innovation was designed to
further exaggerate the already excessive status of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta.
But the result is rather the reverse—such clumsy mishandling leaves alltoo-obvious fingerprints at the scene of the crime.

Page 298

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa said:

Another common problem is that some people cling to and are stuck on the word satipatthana (foundations of mindfulness) far too much. Some go so far as to think that Anapanasati has nothing to do with the four foundations of mindfulness. Some even reject Anapanasati out of hand. In some places they really hang onto the word "satipatthana." They cling to the satipatthana of the Digha-nikaya (Long Discourses) which is not anything more than a long list of names, a lengthy catalogue of sets of dhammas. Although there are whole bunches of dhammas, no way of practice is given or explained there. This is what is generally taken to be satipatthana. Then it is adjusted and rearranged into these and those practices, which become new systems that are called satipatthana practices or meditation.

Then, the followers of such techniques deny, or even despise, the Anapanasati approach, asserting that it is not satipatthana. In truth, Anapanasati is the heart of satipatthana, the heart of all four foundations of mindfulness. The 16 Steps is a straight-forward and clear practice, not just a list of names or dhammas like in the Mahasatipatthana Sutta (Digha-nikaya#22**). Therefore, let us not fall into the misunderstanding that Anapanasati is not satipatthana, otherwise we might lose interest in it thinking that it is wrong. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding is common. Let us reiterate that Anapanasati is the heart of all four satipatthana in a form that can be readily practiced.

We have taken time to consider the words "satipatthana" and "Anapanasati" for the sake of ending any misunderstandings that might lead to a narrow-minded lack of consideration for what others are practicing. So please understand correctly that whether we call it satipatthana or Anapanasati there are only four matters of importance: kaya, vedana, citta, and Dhamma. However, in the Mahasatipatthana Sutta there's no explanation of how to practice these four things. It gives only the names of dhammas and expands upon them. For example, the matter of kaya (body) is spread out over corpse meditations, sati-sampajanna in daily activities, the postures, and others more than can be remembered. It merely catalogues groups of dhammas under the four areas of study.

The Anapanasati Sutta, on the other hand, shows how to practice the four foundations in a systematic progression that ends with emancipation from all dukkha. The sixteen steps work through the four foundations, each one developing upon the previous, and supporting the next. Practice all sixteen steps fully and the heart of the satipatthana arises perfectly. In short, the Satipatthana Suttas are only lists of names. The Anapanasati Sutta clearly shows how to practice the four foundations without anything extra or surplus. It does not mention unrelated matters.

Appendix B

The Anapanasati Sutta properly describes the true fruition or sequence of practise of a stream-enterer, namely:

The nature & causal relevance of the breathing is known & calmed.

From the calming of breathing, pleasant feelings arise, their causal nature is known & calmed.

From the calming of feelings, the mind and its purity or impurity is clearly known, any impurity is cleansed so the mind becomes pure & free.

Due to having a clear lucid mind, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self are fully (100%) experienced, which results is dispassion, the cessation of suffering & delusion and the giving up of regarding things as self.

In addition, the 7 factors of enlightenment are also explained in proper sequence at the end of the Anapanasati Sutta, including, most importantly, how to properly practise them, relying on "letting go/relinquishment" as the foundation.
As for the four noble truths & noble eightfold path, these must be understood intellectually prior to practise and they are realised gradually throughout each stage of practise. This is why each of 14 steps in the Anapanasati Sutta includes the phrase: "He trains himself" prior to them. "He trains himself" means training in the three trainings of higher morality, higher mind & higher wisdom, which includes the 4 noble truths.
In conclusion, the Satipatthana Suttas were probably composed after the Buddha for Buddhists who practise meditation less frequently; providing various different practises they can use.
Where as the Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) has a very auspicious opening narrative, referring to famous disciples and the four levels of enlightenment in the Sangha. The Anapanasati Sutta is for serious practitioners who are practicing meditation for many hours per day.
In SN 54.11, it is said:

For whatever one rightly speaking would call, ‘a noble dwelling,’ ‘a divine dwelling,’ ‘a Tathāgata's dwelling,’ it would be the concentration of mindfulness with breathing that he, speaking rightly, would call, ‘a noble dwelling,’ ‘a divine dwelling,’ ‘a Tathāgata's dwelling.’”

Other questionable features of the Satipatthana Sutta include:

The phrase "He Trains Himself", used in the fourteen of the sixteen stages of the Anapanasati Sutta, is found in only two beginning stages of the Satipatthana Sutta. This appears to indicate the beginning stages of the Satipatthana Sutta concerning breathing were simply copied from the Anapanasati Sutta (rather than spoken by the Buddha).

Similarly, the section on mind (citta) internally is not found elsewhere in the suttas & replicates other suttas (such as MN 119) about how a meditator with psychic powers knows the minds of others externally. It appears  illogical, for example, that a meditator who has developed the earlier stages of the Satipatthana Sutta would have a "scattered" or "unconcentrated" mind.

While requiring more confirmatory research, the use of the term 'vaya' in the Satipatthana Sutta appears questionable. The word 'vaya' in the suttas appears to mean to completely vanish. Where as when something ceases & arises again, the word 'atthaṅgama' or 'settling' (such as in SN 22.5 or AN 4.41) appears used.

very interesting statements you have made here.  I cannot comment one way or another on their validity, without much study - but certainly something to take note of.  Thank you for your information.  I will, as the Buddha is supposed to have said -investigate and find out for myself!

one more question, unless I missed it, where is this information written so I can read what goes along with it?  again thank you.

Some words are underlined. These are internet links. Simply click on the links. Regards

Sati-patthana is Sati + patthana: Mind + its setting up or establishment.
Anapana-sati is minding the aspirations (in and out breaths).
That is two different things: 1. setting up the mind, and 2. using it once set up.
Set up, Mind is: A mind that, abiding in a body, sense experience, mental states, or the Dhamma, sees them as they really are (transient, painful and not self) sees how they come to be (as a consequence of thirst), sees how they pass away, and which, so seeing, lives above it all, watchful and dilligent, reviewing and calming down, overcoming any taṇhā that may appear, downbound to nothing at all in the world.
Minding the breaths (a shortcut for saying 'minding the body, sense-experience, mental states and the Dhammma) is abiding in a mind that sees body, sense experience, mental states, and the Dhamma as they really are, sees how they come to be, sees how they pass away, and which, so seeing, lives above it all, watchful and dilligent, reviewing and calming down, overcoming any taṇhā that may appear, downbound to nothing at all in the world.
So not the same, but about the same subject.

Thank you for your information.  It is certainly helpful and is along the lines of what i had thought - that they come at things from a different angle sort of speak.  Much appreciated.


text:
Is Dhamma-thinking considered wise attention?
According to AN 5.73 (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):

"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
  his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
  dwells in the Dhamma.

Another translation of AN 5.73 by Bhikkhu Sujato:

Furthermore, a mendicant thinks about and considers the teaching in
  their heart, examining it with the mind as they learned and memorized
  it. They spend their days thinking about that teaching. But they
  neglect retreat, and are not committed to internal serenity of heart.
  That mendicant is called one who thinks a lot, not one who lives by
  the teaching.

Is Dhamma-thinking considered yoniso manasikara or wise attention or appropriate attention? Please explain your answer.
If yes, then why is it not useful, without internal tranquility of awareness (cetosamatham)?
If no, then what is needed to upgrade Dhamma-thinking to wise attention? What is it missing?

I know almost nothing about Pali, but in the translation made by Ven. Sujato, he uses the word 'but' after explaining the features of the mere "Dhamma-ponderer". That 'but' could be signaling the reasons behind the labeling as one who does "not live by the teaching". Living it, and not making it dead-letter, seems to indicate the difference.

Yes, if that Dhamma-Thinking is arising continuously without five strings, without five hindrances, and with understanding the real reality, more than trillion times in a second, with it's real relation.
However, most people are thinking of Dhamma with five hindrances in between because they have not enough concentration meditation power, so their mind can't meditate to the end, Nibbāna.

OK. So, Dhamma-thinking while having the five hindrances is not considered wise attention (yoniso manasikara). Only Dhamma-thinking without five hindrances is considered wise attention (yoniso manasikara). This is the connection to internal tranquility of awareness (cetosamatham), because that will overcome the five hindrances.

It is YonisoManasikāra, but this uncleaned thinking is very hard to get access, absorb, balava-vipassanā (strong power insign meditation[almost access]), and AriyaMagga. The mind must be very pure to meditate and get all that states. People who switching with five hindrances needs the perfect past life karma to get the powerful meditation. This is why most people never get Āloka/Obhāsa, they don't clear five hindrances first.

OK. So, Dhamma-thinking is yoniso manasikāra but it is too weak if there are the five hindrances.

Yes, it is  .

Appropriate attention can and should imo be explained as directing the mind, ie

"There is the case where a monk has some work to do. The thought occurs to him: 'I will have to do this work. But when I have done this work, my body will be tired. Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. He doesn't make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the first grounds for laziness.

There arises listlessness, lassitude, lazy stretching of the body, drowsiness after meals, mental sluggishness; frequently giving unwise attention to it — this is the nourishment for the arising of sloth and torpor that have not yet arisen and for the increase and strengthening of sloth and torpor that have already arisen.— SN 46:51

Instead;

"There is the case where a monk has some work to do. The thought occurs to him: 'I will have to do this work. But when I am doing this work, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the first grounds for the arousal of energy.

Thus one appropriately attends to the arousal of energy instead of arousal of laziness.

There is the element of rousing one's energy, the element of exertion, the element of continuous exertion; frequently giving wise attention to it — this is the denourishing of the arising of sloth and torpor that have not yet arisen and of the increase and strengthening of sloth and torpor that have already arisen.— SN 46:51

That is appropriate attention because one such as this attends properly to the aggregates and recognizes the path.So one attends to and grasps properly the aggregates;

“He attends wisely: ‘This is suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’

As in understand it, appropriate attention is the correct assesment of what is and thus knowing the correct course of action. It is the not misapprehending what is going on, the goal, the senses & what the senses present to avoid this;

“This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’

8“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’

Appropriate attention is to be seen as food for factors of awakening. Inappropriate attention as food for hindrances. That is the scope of these principles afaik.
In short i think that thinking in and by itself is the breaking into speech due to initial application and sustained attention, appropriate attention is then the application of mind associated with enlightenment factors.
One who understands the Dhamma correctly would be moved to meditate as if turban was on fire.
If one keeps thinking about the Dhamma and is not moved to practice then one either has not come to agreement with the Dhamma or simply neglects contemplation which rouses effort.
One such as this will be with hindrances and if he gives appropriate attention it is clearly not enough of it.

Is Dhamma-thinking considered yoniso manasikara or wise attention or appropriate attention?
If yes, then why is it not useful, without internal tranquility of awareness (cetosamatham)?

You can be an expert at reciting suttas (or what is known elsewhere as rule-governed behavior), but you also need the direct experience of the theoretical concepts for developing the dhyanas, or pranja. (A healthy morality doesn't hurt either, for that matter.)
For reference, i recently wrote an answer to another question. I hope it applies to your question as well: Why did Buddha put so much emphasis on no-self?
Combining the different forms of wisdom is an iterative process of knowledge, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Also - to elaborate - we have different proclivities (anusaya), and Buddhaghosa even defined different personality types (caritas) that tends to favor a certain "temperament" over others:

greedy temperament [rāga-carita]
hateful temperament [doṣa-carita]
dull temperament [moha-carita]
devout temperament [śraddhā-carita]
intellectual temperament [buddhi-carita]
discursive temperament [vitarka-carita]

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/carita
Depending on what specific tendencies a person may have, there are recommendations on how to proceed in ones practice.
To sum up: We may have to go outside of our natural habits to create a balance that aids us in our practice.

Only Ariya Puggala (Sotapanna and avove) has the Yonisomanasikara.

I believe this answer is wrong. SN 55.5 states that yoniso manasikara is required for stream entry. Then how would it make sense that only stream enterers can have yoniso manasikara?

What it means is if you have Yonisomanasikara, you are a Sotapanna-)


text:
Can lay people acheive enlighment (Arahanthship) in this life by adhering to Buddhist principles?
During the time of Buddha, it is said many people at one gathering attained enlightenment by listening to only one one of his sermons. How can a  mind develop such a achieving  within matter of hours.  There are millions of devoted Buddhist in the world now but I have not heard a single person achieving higher mental status. Are there any other explanation this other than karma?

Thank you every one for giving more insight to my thoughts.

If you analyse the Sutta, you will find those who became Arahants by just listening to discourse are people who have already perfected Sila and Samadhi. For instance Buddhas first disciples, five ascetics.

If you look at the sutta you will find that only ariya are consumate in sila & samadhi.

The general point is true tho, they were highly developed and their faculties ripened quickly.

There are several traditional takes on this.
According to some commentary the Dhamma declines gradually so that there is a steady decline and progressive lack of higher attainments in the world until there are no attainments left. Based on this kind of reasoning some hold that there is a cap on what will be attained in our time, some hold that Sotapannaship is possible whereas other hold that as being impossible because they base it on a different calculation and values ie 500 years for disappearance of this or that attainment instead of a 1000.
Another popular interpretation is that Dhamma can be revived so that even if there is nobody with attainments during a decline, it is still possible to get all or some of the attainments.
These are the basis for popular theravadin positions.

Samadhi(Concentration) should be developed, Sila(Morality) should be practiced and with the help of these 2, Paññā(Discernment) will be developed. Only by having discernment can one understand the Buddhist teachings. At the time of Buddha, as SarathW said, people who attained stages of awakening already perfected Sila and Samadhi therefore it was easy for them to understand the Buddha's teachings. In the present if you want to achieve 'awakening' you should perfect Sila(Minimum 5 precepts) and Samadhi (Samata Meditation) and move onto Insight (Vipassana) Meditation, with time you will awaken.
The reason today's laypeople and even Bhikkus do not achieve awakening is because they do not practice Buddha's teachings. The teachings have turned to lip recital but not practice.

To share one's attainments is generally frowned upon as we do not have the buddha here to verify attainments. However, in the vipassana tradition there are some lay people who have demonstrated extreme discipline for example: Dipa Ma https://dipama.com/
May find peace and happiness,
With Metta :)

"Suppose that a contemplative or brahman were to arrive at a skillful Dhamma. Having arrived at a skillful Dhamma, he should not declare it to anyone else, for what can one person do for another?" ~ Lohicca Sutta DN 12. This sutta clarifies that if a member of the Sangha asks another member for any attainments in the spiritual path, He/She should, if they have attained any fruits, say their attainments.

How can a mind develop such a achieving within matter of hours.

Sorta like math prodigies being able to master calculus, differential equations, or number theory when still in middle school. There's no difference, an inevitable result of many lives of cultivation and dedication to the discipline.

There are millions of devoted Buddhist in the world now but I have not heard a single person achieving higher mental status. Are there any other explanation this other than karma?

Probably because the real deal who's truly achieved those higher attainments wouldn't go around and proclaim it to others. Anyway, it's not necessarily true that modern men's intelligence or capacity are duller or dumber than their ancient counterparts, it's definitely true that the environment our ancestors once lived was vastly more conducive to the cultivation of the Dhamma. Back then, there were no TVs, radios, internet chatrooms, facebook, snapchat, twitter, zoom, tik tok, and a gazillion of other modern day distractions.

"Anyway, it's not necessarily true that modern men's intelligence or capacity are duller or dumber than their ancient counterparts", in my view the people at the time of Buddha were much more intelligent and had great kamma to be born at that time. Arahat Sariputta's discernment is said to be only second to Gautama Buddha Himself.

That's a legit point. To be able to be born at the right time and place, and to be able to get first-hand experience cultivating the Dhamma under the Buddha's guidance would take absolutely awesome Kamma for sure!


text:
Does everything that happens to me happens because of me?
I always wonder that my self. People scam me because I am not wise.
What happened?
Is there always something I did that causes that? How do I know that?

I’m voting to close this question because even though it's not a bad question, it's way too open for interpretation, even within the scope of buddhism.

Surrounded by deceit and scams, probably the most important thing to consider first is our own conduct:

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

With right view about our conduct we can then seek out others with equal views about conduct. In this way our choices lead us upwards, away from deceit, away from scams, away from people who would tempt us with scams.

SN45.3:1.3: “Sir, good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.”

To lead a life without regret and remorse, embrace ethics and become a good friend who rejoices in other good friends. With Right View, step onto the Noble Eightfold Path practicing ethics, wisdom and immersion.

People scam others because of greed, hatred & delusion in their mind.
That we get scammed is because most of us do not have perfect knowledge.

There are these relevant Sutta;

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.than.html
  "Master Gotama, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who are of this doctrine, this view: Whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before. Now what does Master Gotama say to that?"
[The Buddha:] "There are cases where some feelings arise based on bile.[1] You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on bile. So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."
"There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the change of the seasons... from uneven[2] care of the body... from harsh treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

There is also this Sutta, it's too long to post all the relevant excerpts tho http://dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN101.html