text:
Parents suppressing the teaching
I love my parents, but for some reason they do not understand my teaching and misinterpret what I say and won't listen to me. Their misinterpretations led them to take all of my books on Buddhism I was studying as well as prevent me from meditation whenever I try or try to be mindful of doing anything, they prevent me from having to do with the Buddha's teachings (However, I can still do online things in secret as you can see). They say that when I leave the house or grow to a sufficient age, then I can resume, but for now, they have the right to take away my religion basically and it is really putting a hard toll on my spiritual growth and practice for purity. They hope it will fade away, but I have used the Dhamma as my practice for two years now and I have grown to know its truth, unlike my parents.
Does anyone have any recommendations on what I should do? Are there
any ways I can continue the practice even though my parents work
effortlessly for me not to do so? How can I work to show metta to them
when I want to but get frustrations when they push away my teachings
or speak as if Buddhism is a "cult" that makes me anti-social and a
bad person, even though I have explained all of it to them?
Please help! Metta!

Best wishes to you in your struggles. Hopefully their resistance can be used to help you grow stronger despite their efforts to slow you down.

I would want to ask why they feel as they do. Are they dogmatic monotheists?

Good thing there is an astronomical amount of free quality dharma on the internet.

You have already answered your question. Be kind to your parents. Do some metta for them. Metta will give you the right view on things and understanding.

You should not be teaching your parents Buddhism. It is forbidden in Buddhism to teach others Buddhism; unless the other people request to be taught (AN 9.5).
You should not be practising "zombie mindfulness" in sight of your parents because this will freak them out. As a Buddhist, your practise is to not cause harm or distress to others. In your parent's home, when with others, you should act naturally and normally.
Apart from this, there is nothing stopping you from meditating in private and also practising right speech, right action & right livelihood in public.
Buddhism (DN 31) says your parents have the duty to train you for a profession, i.e., ensure you receive an education. Your Buddhism should not interfere with your schooling and education.

You don't have to make a show out of your Dharma. You don't need to make it fly in your parents faces. There's no need to convince them of anything. Buddhism is what you practice in your mind. No-one needs to know. In fact, making it a secret practice only makes it more powerful.
When you practice the perfect Buddhism - which is defined as Buddhism without Ego - on the outside you will be perfect, too.

When we care about someone we want to share good things with them. If they don't want that gift it can be painful. We must respect their decision to accept or reject the gift.
Part of growing up is to take responsibility for our own life and how we choose to live. Your parents may be scared that you are growing up fast.  They may find it difficult to understand that you have found something important for yourself that is different from the life they had in mind for you.  During growing up this is often a source of tension and arguments between parents and children. Eventually a child's way of life becomes their own responsibility, but along the way, the parents give the best guidance they can (even if they are not always so well-informed).  Arguments about who's way is right are normal and to be expected, even if it is painful to have those arguments.  The arguments are a sign that they care about your life and want the best for you (as they see it).
At times it can be valuable to have another adult to discuss these things with, a teacher or counsellor, an aunt or uncle or just a family friend.

In the past I wondered why Buddhism was a small religion (Theravada). Later I realised that the truth does not need to be told and spread fanatically as the Truth will be slowly emerge to them with Karma.
People are ignorant, therefore they will not like to listen to the Truth. Once you know the Truth, stick to it, live that way. You do not need to teach others as if they have not much good Karma they won't understand the truth as they will live in ignorance.

Consider that some parents take away childern's video games, rigs and or cables because they do no approve. It's very standard thing, if it wasn't Buddhism it would probably be something else.
Just keep doing your thing where there is an opening and develop your understanding and the expression of meaning so that you can later establish effective communication with your parents and straighten them out, this is good for you and that way you can express your gratitude for showing you the world and repay your debt to them.
Also i would advice any parent to keep their children from religious sects even the contemporary Buddhist traditions, i would do so lest i was fairly confident they would be capable of providing adequate training and not confuse the young person. There are many Buddhist monks who hold wrong views, even in the time of the Buddha.
Your parents are just looking out for you imho and you would be well adviced to identify as an Analyst rather than a Buddhist, be one who analyzes, searches for truth, committed to discovery of philosophical principles and elimination of delusional ideas.
If you present yourself in this way to outsiders you avoid all association with any particular religious sect even if you say you study the Pali Canon and approve of that exposition. Buddha said himself he was teaching the doctrine of Analysis so maybe you would be more accurately describing yourself in the forementioned manner.


text:
Does Western Philosophy Have Conceptual Overlaps with Buddhism?
I think I've noticed some conceptual overlaps between Buddhism and Western Philosophy and Science. What are good sources for comparing and contrasting Western ideas and Buddhism? What are suspected sources of eastern ideas appearing in Western works?
I list some speculated commonalities below by my admittedly incomplete understanding. What knowledge I have of Buddhism primarily comes from books by Thich Nhat Hanh and Alan Watts. I also attended Pure Land services for a while.
PSYCHOLOGY
For example, Mindfulness has a bit in common with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Meta-Cognition. Mindfulness is, in part, awareness of ones thoughts. Meta-cognition is awareness and control of one's cognitive processes. One's thinking isn't dominated by random firing to which the thinker is oblivious.
The Second Nobel truth relates suffering to delusion, CBT relates emotional suffering to "Cognitive Distortions". These distortions are typically lack of present-mindedness, obsessing over past and future. They also involve a general failure to consider events in their full context.
LITERATURE
'When Hamlet asks Rosencrantz and Guildenstern why they would volunteer to come to a prison, they respond that they don't think of Denmark as a prison. Hamlet explains, “[T]here is / nothing good or bad but thinking makes it / so.”  '. Here the 'good' and 'bad' are pleasure and pain and the degree to which they are experienced. CBT says something similar- one has emotional suffering because of thinking one way about them as opposed to alternatives. Buddhism says suffering is due to various delusions. CBT faults "Cognitive Distortions".
In his The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde says, "To become a spectator of one's own life is to escape the suffering of life.” One can be self-aware, aware of oneself in a third person sense, and one can be aware of one self in the first person, as an 'I'. Here Wilde seems to be relating reduction of suffering with reducing ego. Just prior to writing this book, he wrote the forward to a friend's book on The Tao Te Ching. His line might also might touch upon a mindful self-awareness as well as a capacity to be amidst unfortunate events and yet not suffer, at least emotionally.
William Blake speaks of The Human Form Divine which seems to overlap with Blessed Human Existence. "To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour" speaks to a element of timelessness. Apparently Blake was familiar with Vedic works- Awakenings: Blake and the Buddha
PHILOSOPHY/EPISTEMOLOGY
More significantly, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics approaches ethics with an emphasis on character development as opposed to focusing on only individual acts. One is less ethical than ideal if one does the right things for the wrong reason, if they have the wrong motivation. Western philosophy categorizes ethical theories which emphasize character as Virtue Ethics.  So both Aristotle and the Buddha would fall into this category. Also, Aristotle is notorious for advocating Moderation in All Things, similar to The Middle Way, very similar to the Dharma Seal - Nirvana is Beyond Extremes.
Buddhism also seems to have a lot in common with Stoicism which teaches something very similar to "All Emotions Are Pain"- The Second Seal of Dharma as discussed here by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche on Four Seals of Dharma.
Science strives to be objective and not subjective. A subjective experience is very personal, ego-centered. Personal stake in an experiment's outcome one tries to avoid. Go where the evidence leads and don't shoe horn it into a pet theory, which admittedly may be going on here. There are some elements of experience which are more or less universalizable. There's a distancing of ones understanding from the self or personal stakes. Data is assessed by means of an impersonal method of evaluation. One doesn't have a gut feeling that there is a correspondence in the data, one has methods for proving a correspondence with statistical significance, e.g. Statistical Hypothesis Testing.
Are these all just a coincidences? Superficial linguistic commonalities?
Are humans in touch with something that speaks to them about Buddhism regardless of their background? I've read that the Dharma is everywhere. Emerson speaks of The Oversoul like some speak of dharma.

What does "Mindfulness" mean and what bit does it have in common with CBT and Meta-cognition?

The others aren't pointing at Buddhism. Buddhism points to something, which other people have also pointed at. (Or tried to)

Mindfulness is, in part, awareness of one's own thoughts and feelings. This is the definition of meta-cognition. The Second Noble Truth is, in part,  the relationship between suffering and delusion. CBT contends that emotional suffering can be alleviated by avoiding "Cognitive Distortions".

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

This is beginning to look more like a monograph than a question ;)

Good point @AndreiVolkov! I'm not sure what to cut out. Leaving out context has led to misunderstanding. I think I'll elaborate on what information I seek.

To the extent I thought the question wasn't clear, I asked for clarification and you did (after which I thought it was clear enough). After people have answered they generally tend not to edit their answers to match edits in the question ... and it's kinda bad practice to edit or change a question in a way which 'invalidates' existing answers (which answer a previous version of the question) -- you don't seem to have done that here, you added context to the question without changing it -- still if you want a more detailed follow-on answer about anything you might ask a new question about that.

If there are overlaps, what are possible explanations?
It's natural that when you learn something new, you compare it with what you know already.
Not just "compare", but "see parallels" and "see contrasts" and "try to integrate with".
I'm not sure whether it's possible to do otherwise, but there are one or two mistakes to beware of.
One is to assume that the new thing is like the old thing -- like "Buddhism is a pre-scientific version of Physics" or "Buddhism is a pagan version of Christianity" -- which might be quite misleading and not a good way to learn the new thing. So try to learn the new thing on its own terms, based on what it says about itself, and as it's understood from the point of view of the 'professionals' or teachers people who practice and profess it.
Another mistake might be assume that because your own mind draws parallels (based on your personal experience), therefore those parallels 'really' exist, 'out there', 'in reality', in the things themselves. Whereas they are your projections, categorisations.
In particular it doesn't necessarily imply historical overlap. It might be independent i.e. convergent evolution. Or an only-superficial similarity. Or people will say, "they're both descriptions of the same 'world' so that's not surprising." Or, instead of "world", they might say "Well 'people' are like that, people are similar and think similarly."
I think the simplest explanation though might be, "It's because your mind is like that, drawing on your own experiences."
Please note well that I know little about Buddhism, psychology, or philosophy -- this is how I'd explain that though, based on my experience and what other people say, and as a type of sankhara.
Some people might deny your comparing Buddhism -- "No, Buddhism isn't like that: the Buddhist Dharma is much better!" -- and I think that's partially true, but anyway, as I said, beware of assuming it's no more than what you know already.
Maybe when you do compare it with something, it should be compared with your own experience, more than with other doctrines.
What are suspected sources of eastern ideas appearing in Western works?
Well I'm not a scholar/historian but I think the Greeks met eastern ideas e.g. when Alexander the Great went there (a generation after Aristotle, wasn't it). There are western ideas in eastern works, anyway, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art
And apart from that, Buddhism was introduced into the west, starting in about the 19th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_the_West I gather that some westerners tried to see or to describe it within a "universal religion" kind of framework -- for example why Christmas Humphreys split from the Theosophical society to found the London Buddhist society -- see also e.g. the Pali Text society -- also note that Buddhism too may have changed in recent centuries in its original countries.
Highly cross-cultural ideas like "Jesus of Nazareth trained as a Buddhist monk" seem to me ahistorical, idle conjecture; and shallow.
I think this topic is too large to answer with any justice, especially as a subquestion -- perhaps there are books about it ... I can't recommend any but if I were looking I might look into the references/footnotes of Wikipedia's Buddhism in the West article[s] for a start.
What knowledge I have of Buddhism primarily comes from books by Thich Nhat Hanh and Alan Watts. I also attended Pure Land services for a while.
Yes. I read some of the Pali suttas (in translation) to add to that, and what people have written on this site plus a few other book recommendations.
Mindfulness is, in part, awareness of ones thoughts and feelings.
I'm not sure -- in Buddhism, "mindfulness" might be remembering or keeping in mind, for example being aware of what the Dhamma (the Buddhist doctrine) says, about thoughts and feelings.
The Second Nobel truth relates suffering to delusion
Death for example seems real enough, when you experience it up close, so ... I'd rate that statement as "semi-true" and conditional on how you define "delusion" and so on.
CBT relates emotional suffering to "Cognitive Distortions"
If you say so (I haven't experienced it).
Hamlet says " for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
It's been a while since I ever studied Hamlet, forgotten the context of that quote.
The Buddhist suttas at least are keen on ethics, so there's absolutely "good and bad" in that sense -- killing is wrong, and so on. They're also keen on what's "skilful" -- which is another meaning of "good and bad" (i.e. "ept and inept)" -- as well as "liberating", which provides a motive or goal, kind of axiomatic that liberated or awake is "better" than not.
If Buddhism agrees with Hamlet that there is no "good and bad" (I say this without researching the context to see what Hamlet meant by it), it might be to do with the "desire and aversion" kind of meaning of "good and bad" -- where "desire and aversion" are kind of unskilful and even among the three poisons.
These distortions are typically lack of present-mindedness, obsessing over past and future.
I've heard of that in the context of modern-day (non-Buddhist) therapy for PTSD -- like I said though, no first-hand experience.
To become a spectator of one's own life is to escape the suffering of life.
I guess I'd rate this (and your quote from Blake) as partially true. Buddhism has more to say about that, and contradicts some of the detail.
For example I think you're assuming that, because there is "spectating" therefore there's "a spectator".
Whereas an important part of the early doctrine is that there is no self, no permanent or unchanging self, nothing to call "me" or "mine".
Reifying or personifying "awareness" is part of other Hindu doctrine, isn't it? But Buddhism contradicts that, saying that any view of self (including "I exist" and "I don't exist") is unsatisfactory, leads to or occasions suffering.
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
I don't want to compare Buddhist with Aristotelian ethics (but given the batting average so far, it seems likely that I wouldn't wholly agree) -- I haven't read Aristotle -- I did read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, where the protagonist reckons that Aristotle missed the point.
I find Buddhist ethics more wholesome, practical, helpful, better-explained, more personal and less theoretical, than the little I remember Plato saying about it.
Aristotle is notorious for advocating Moderation in All Things, similar to The Middle Way
I don't think that's what middle way means.
"Moderation in all things" -- isn't there a saying somewhere about how it's hard to be content with even just a moderate bit of shit in your food?
I think that "middle way" might mean "not left and not right" but also "not middle" too, so, avoiding fixed views.
The advice (the discipline) for monks seems to me more about whatever's necessary than about whatever's moderate.
All Emotions Are Pain
I'm not sure that's Buddhist. "Joy" and so on. And "lack of remorse as a result of ethical conduct", if that counts as an emotion (though maybe it's a non-emotion).
There's canonical justification for "birth" is painful and "being" is painful, that might be to do with a unenlightened mode of cognition, and "identifying" (self-view) and attachments (the "clinging-aggregates").

I think I've noticed some overlaps between Buddhism and Western Philosophy and Science. I'm wondering if I'm misreading.

In human attempts to examine reality, obviously there are overlaps. However, it is unlikely Western Philosophy and Science have clearly determined the ultimate reality of suffering, not-self (anatta) & Nirvana (perfect peace).

If there are overlaps, what are possible explanations? In some cases, there is little evidence of interaction.

Obviously, the reality of some things are plainly obvious, thus overlap. However, since Buddhism is 2,600 years old, obviously there is no evidence of interaction between Buddhism and Western Philosophy and Science.

For example, Mindfulness has a bit in common with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Meta-Cognition.

Buddhism is 2,600 years old, therefore it has nothing in common with 20th Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Meta-Cognition; although Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Meta-Cognition may have something in common with Buddhism.

Hamlet says " for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Unrelated to Buddhism because Hamlet is 1600 AD. Also, Buddhism says there is good & bad.

In his The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde says, "To become a spectator of one's own life is to escape the suffering of life.”

Oscar Wilde was a dreamer who died with lots of suffering and was so deluded he sent for a Catholic priest to bless him probably due to personal fear about his promiscuous homosexual life.

William Blake speaks of The Human Form Divine which seems to overlap with Blessed Human Existence.

Born: 28 November 1757. Unlikely said much close to Buddhism.

More significantly, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics approaches ethics with an emphasis on character development. As such both his ethics and the Buddha's are categorized as forms of Virtue Ethics. Also, Aristotle is notorious for advocating Moderation in All Things, similar to The Middle Way.

Virtue is unrelated to Buddhism's unique character.

Examples go on and on.

Actually, no other doctrine has been the same as Buddhism's anatta (not-self) and its role in ending suffering and finding Nirvana (unless the other doctrine copied Buddhism).

Are these all just a coincidences?

There are no coincidences.

Are humans in touch with something that speaks to them about Buddhism regardless of their background? Emerson speaks of The Oversoul like some speak of dharma.

Sounds like the above does not understand Buddhism very well, or at all.

To overlap, ideas need not be identical. Ideas from 2600 years ago can influence ideas today. Meta-cognition is non-passive awareness of ones thoughts and feelings. Mindfulness is more than this, but contains this. Hamlet's line associates suffering with perspective and not guaranteed by external events. Buddhism says one can avoid Dukkha in the presence of misfortune. Wilde speaks of awareness resulting in alleviation of some suffering.

I'm sure the west has basically all the same wisdom but the Buddha had a very focused & practical path towards  emancipation. I'm not sure the west harmonized all the wisdom they had into practices that could show one the depths of the mind like the Buddha's teaching does.

Yep. I think what might be in common isn't tied together coherently.

There are endless conceptual overlaps between Buddhist and 'Western' philosophy. There is only one Reality so philosophers are forced to normalise on Truth at least to some degree.
Kant's 'thing-in-itself' would be a classic case. A minor tweak to his idea and we arrive at the idea that Reality is beyond conceptual fabrication. The Buddhist philosopher-monk Nagarjuna proves the absurdity of positive theories and so do most Western thinkers. Their absurdity is simply a fact and our approach to philosophy will not change this.Thus Kant states 'All selective conclusions about the world-as-a-whole are undecidable. This is all that Nagarjuna proves in Fundamental Verses in order to demonstrate the philosophical foundation of Buddhism.
Then there is Spencer Brown's calculus in Laws of Form, which shows how Form arises from Formlessness, or differentiation from the undifferentiated. F.H Bradley's metaphysical essay Appearance and Reality is a discursive reproduction of Nagarjuna's logical proof. Heidegger's explanation of altruism a the 'breakthrough of a metaphysical truth' indicates his endorsement of the unity of Being. Then there is the materialist apologist Daniel Dennett's idea that the self is a mental fabrication. The list goes on. The truth will out, as they say.
Anyone who investigates philosophy will end up discovering all sorts of 'Buddhist' ideas even if they don't realise it since philosophy is philosophy. If we 'shut up and calculate' then it matters not whether we are a Buddhist philosopher or a Protestant evangelist, the logic forces us to converge.
Or, it does if we are dispassionate and rigorous. These qualities are often sadly lacking among Western thinkers, who tend to be trapped in dogmatic views that prevent them following the logic to its natural destination.

About your last paragraph, any point of view in this world has its share of dogmatic followers. I believe there is a buddhist word for that; upadana.

@Erik - You're surely right, For every possible view there is share of dogmatic followers. Logic and reason seem to have little to do with anything.  .

I forget the exact details but, I read a book on Existentialism a while back and it struck me as  the ying to buddhisms yang.  Existentialism was all about working 24/7 to be an existentialist while buddhism is about being in the moment.

Hamlet says " for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." CBT says something similar- one has emotional suffering because of thinking one way about them as opposed to alternatives. Buddhism says suffering is due to various delusions.

this is the same appalling claim made by people who invented mahayana and visuddhimagga and that's definitely the opposite of what the buddha claims. Those people say that because puhutjjanas addicted to forms, sensuality always try salvage what they crave ie forms, sensuality, entertainment, art, movies, music, philosophy and say they are good people for doing just that. Some of them even say that they can be enlightened by a special object, like a special sound, typically the sound Om that they love hum so much.
Those people fail to understand that The delusion you speak of is precisely the detrimental effect of hyping sensuality, including thoughts (especially bad thoughtS) and the craving for [good] rebirth. Mindfulness is the beginning of the purification of thoughts first then of vedana and sanna when the citta is in samadhi, by forcing the view of anicca, dukkha anatta on the body, vedanna, sanna
The result of Minduflness is the restrain of bad things, ie mostly thoughts at first (because puthujjanas crave basing their life on their moronic thoughts, it is the citta which much be controlled and the pinnacle of this is samadhi http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/41.16-Vasa-S-a7.38-piya.pdf )

[The Venerable Ajita:]
"By what is the world enveloped? Because of what is it not known? With
  what do you say it is soiled? What is its great fear?"
[The Lord:]
"The world is enveloped by ignorance, Ajita. Because of wrongly
  directed desire and heedlessness it is not known (as it really is). It
  is soiled by longings and its great fear is suffering."
[Ajita:]
"Everywhere flow the streams.[1] What is the obstruction for the
  streams, tell me the restricting of them, by what are they cut off?"
[The Lord:]
"Whatever streams are in the world, it is mindfulness that obstructs
  them and restricts them, and by wisdom they are cut off."

https://suttacentral.net/snp5.2/en/anandajoti
In order To be mindful, the focus is not on forms, objects and so on, contrary to people who love dry vipassana and their kasinas, but on whatever is not ''mara's domain'' ie what is ''your domain'', which is this stuff:

“And what is a bhikkhu’s resort, his own ancestral domain? It is the
  four establishments of mindfulness. What four? Here, bhikkhus, a
  bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
  comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in
  regard to the world. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings …
  mind in mind … phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending,
  mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the
  world. This is a bhikkhu’s resort, his own ancestral domain.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn47.6/en/bodhi
and being restrained means this

Venerable Kaccaana. In what way is one 'with sense-doors unguarded'?"
"In this case, Brahman, someone, seeing objects with the eye, is
  attracted to things that are pleasing, and repelled by things that are
  unpleasing. He dwells without mindfulness and his mind is restricted.
  He does not experience the emancipation of the heart through wisdom.
  And so those evil and unwholesome states do not cease without
  remainder. Hearing a sound..., smelling a scent..., tasting a
  flavor..., touching an object..., cognizing a mind-object..., he is
  attracted by things that are pleasing, and repelled by things that are
  unpleasing... And so those evil and unwholesome states do not cease
  without remainder. That is how one is 'with sense-doors unguarded.'
  Now in what way is one 'with sense-doors guarded?'
"In this case, Brahman, a monk, seeing objects with the eye, is not
  attracted to things that are pleasing and not repelled by things that
  are unpleasing. He dwells with mindfulness present, and his mind is
  unbounded. Thus he experiences the emancipation of the heart through
  wisdom and so those evil and unwholesome states that arise cease
  without remainder.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.132.wlsh.html
it turns out that sati has also a condition

The three kinds of misconduct, too, I say, have a nutriment; they are
  not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for the three kinds
  of misconduct? It should be said: non-restraint of the sense
  faculties. Non-restraint of the sense faculties, too, I say, has a
  nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for
  non-restraint of the sense faculties? It should be said: lack of
  mindfulness and clear comprehension. Lack of mindfulness and clear
  comprehension, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without
  nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of mindfulness and clear
  comprehension? It should be said: careless attention. Careless
  attention, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment.
  And what is the nutriment for careless attention? It should be said:
  lack of faith. Lack of faith, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not
  without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of faith? It
  should be said: not hearing the good Dhamma.

https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/an10.61
and this condition has nothing to do with what puthujjanas have invented and call CBT.
And just like all other systems you mentioned, Stoicism is an invention of rationalists, the dhamma nothing to do with rationalism, no matter what rationalists, philosophers, intellectuals claim.

It's a shame so many hold this view. It often leads outsiders to assume Buddhist teachings are irrational. It seems it even leads some Buddhists to assume the same. It's hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of the teachings.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
meditation - How obvious should the touch of the breath be?
When I try to feel the sensations of the breath at the nostrils/upper lip during anapana, it's so faint that after a certain point, I think I may be imagining the touch of the breath.
I may even feel other sensations (pressure/vibrations) on my face but I would still have trouble feeling the touch of my breath at the rims of my nostrils or my upper lip. And my mind is still very much lost in thought so I know it's not because I've become very concentrated or anything.
So how obvious should the touch of the breath be? Should it be as faint/subtle to the point of almost feeling imaginary? Should I stick to this and assume it will approve as does my concentration?

The deeper one gets into absorption the finer and finer the breath will become and there's nothing wrong with that as long as one continues to maintain focus/awareness on the contact point (nostrils/upper lip).

@santa100 Please note that I said that it's not because I'm in absorption as my mind is still lost in thought.

The touch of the breath should be totally obvious and clear.
Anapanasati is not something exactly easy to do. If it was easy to do, all of the posters on this chatsite would be enlightened.
You should stick to it and assume it will improve as does your concentration.
You should experiment with different methods, such as:

Place one finger horizontally under the nostrils and mentally note the thought "out" each time you feel the air touching/striking/warming your finger; and mental note "in" when you feel the air not touching your finger and being sucked back into your nostrils.
Make sure your finger is placed at a distance away from your face where the maximum impact of the breath can be felt. For example, my finger is about 6 millimetres away from my face/upper lip because i have a big nose.

Then continue to do the same but only mentally note "out" and stop mentally noting "in". Instead, let the mind be quiet, open & relaxed on the in breath; but continue to note the out breath.
If your arm gets tired/uncomfortable, change to your other arm & finger.
As your mind familiarizes itself with the sensation of the breath on the finger; then allow the mind to search for & feel the sensation where it is most obvious in the nose/nostril.
Also, as you start to regularly feel the breath in your nostril, then let the eyes & face relax and allow the mind to try to feel the breath in another place, such as in/through the throat. To only watch the breathing around the nostrils is not important.
There are other methods, such as to occasionally deliberately breath a little longer and postpone/extend the end of the breath a little longer (but not too long so it becomes pranayama !!!. We don't want to get dizzy practising Hindu pranayama).

Ultimately, the breath can only be perfectly lucidly experienced by the mind when the mind is very quiet and actually not even try to watch the breath. "Trying" to watch the breath is also another obstacle to clear knowing of the breath. However, if your mind is not quiet and has thoughts, "trying" to watch the breath helps suppress the thoughts.

The real breath must be softer and softer (still breathing but breathe softer lighter calmer).
But the breath comprehension is clearer better cloudless.
It's something like you use fewer tools and fewer raw materials, when you are  more professional on doing something. Your thinking of doing that thing is very very clear because of your experience, but you use very  very fewer tools and fewer raw materials compare to your fist time doing it.
The practitioner is focusing on  these together:

how long is my breath?
how short is my breath?
Am I keep focusing on whole breath measuring?
Am I breathe softer and softer (still breathing but breathe softer lighter calmer)?

Then the breath will appear clearer.
Every practice needs time. Be patient to keep practice go on.

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


text:
Anti-natalist overtones in Buddhism
Buddhism has anti-natalist overtones according to the writings of Hari Singh Gour below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

Buddha states his propositions in the pedantic style of his age. He throws them into a form of sorites; but, as such, it is logically faulty and all he wishes to convey is this: Oblivious of the suffering to which life is subject, man begets children, and is thus the cause of old age and death. If he would only realize what suffering he would add to by his act, he would desist from the procreation of children; and so stop the operation of old age and death.

How does this view of the Buddha reconcile with the fact that the Buddha had a son named Rahul?

This may be a duplicate of Should a Buddhist have Children?

@user17144 Hi! Remember that (if we are to believe the narrative told by texts and tradition) Gotama had its son before leaving it's lay life behind. Therefore, I'm not sure if it's correct to say "The Buddha had a son". Gotama was not born as the Buddha. Kind regards!

Did he see the old man, the diseased man, and the corpse before or after he had his son?

Wasn't it after? If I remember, he saw the messengers, decided to leave home, looked in to see his wife and son sleeping in their bedroom for the last time, and left quietly. Some people view whole story as a fable, though, even though it's famous -- it's from the introduction to the Jataka, https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits006.htm

So was he unaware that people grow old and die before he had his son because he was kept in a sheltered atmosphere? Seems a little far-fetched but could be true.

There is constant reference to the "Gods" but Buddhism is agnostic as far as I know..

An essay on it by one monk -- Meeting the Divine Messengers -- which starts The traditional legend of the Buddha's quest for enlightenment tells us that throughout his youth and early manhood Prince Siddhattha, the Bodhisatta, lived in complete ignorance of the most elementary facts of human life.  and says, This charming story, which has nurtured the faith of Buddhists through the centuries, enshrines at its heart a profound psychological truth. In the language of myth etc. It is a very famous story; good for children?

The suttas are taken as canonical, maybe more reliable or more literally true than the Jataka and its introduction -- and I think the suttas do feature the Buddha's wife and son and maybe mother too, who become Buddhist monks and nuns themselves after the Buddha discovers enlightenment -- I'm not saying he didn't have a family. MN 26 though is one of the few mentions in the suttas of the Buddha's "going forth", barely one paragraph, it doesn't have those details from the Jataka.

The Buddha reached an arguably reasonable conclusion, but on the way he ended up committing injustice on his family. Also, the fable implies that nobody he knew during his childhood and early manhood ever grew old, sick or died in that time. But he could surely see his father grow old and change in appearance, couldn't he? Also, he would surely have noticed the absence of his mother but the presence of other mothers around. In any case, there is no end to speculation. Thank you for patiently answering my question.

This question could be improved by giving the source of the quote.

While the Buddha later taught procreation of children can be burdensome & confining, thus previously calling his son "Rahula", this is unrelated to ending suffering.
Keep in mind, when unenlightened Gotama (not yet a Buddha) had a son, Gotama was not yet a Buddha. He was not enlightened. Therefore, Gotama calling his son "Rahula" was not related to being a Buddha.
Like most people, Hari Singh Gour did not understand Buddhism, which is shameful for a highly educated Indian.
In India, today, as always, the word "jati" does not necessarily mean "physical birth" or "procreation". I expect Hari Singh Gour should have understood this.
The Buddha taught suffering ends by ending "jati" ("self & social identity"). When there is no conceiving of "identity", there is no reference point for the conceiving of "aging & death".
When the mind suffers about aging & death, it does not suffer over the aging & death of a physical body or corpse. Instead, the mind suffers over the loss an "identity" or "jati", such as "myself", "my mother", "my father", "my wife", "my daughter", "my son", "my friend", "my computer", "my wealth", etc.
Please read the Pali sutta paragraphs below and try to understand:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn? When the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’
MN 140

And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are
  subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
  pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
  subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
  is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
  them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.
And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.
MN 26

If you struggle to understand MN 26, then SN 12.66 clearly says the cause of aging & death is acquisition (upadhi) or attachment. SN 12.66 does not mention "birth" ("jati"; apart from a general meaning of "cause" or "jatika"), as follows:

Here, bhikkhus, when engaged in inward exploration, a bhikkhu explores
  thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world
  headed by aging-and-death: what is the source of this suffering, what
  is its origin, from what is it born (jātika) and produced? When what exists
  does aging-and-death come to be? When what does not exist does
  aging-and-death not come to be?’
As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of
  suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
  suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
  is born (jātika) and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition,
  aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition,
  aging-and-death does not come to be.’
SN 12.66

If the Buddha felt that his son was a fetter, why did he have him? I am confused by the inconsistency between the rules he laid down for his monastic order and his own actions. Are you saying that the Buddha did not imply that if man did not have children he would end suffering, that he actually meant that ending "Jati" or "self-identification" would end suffering, and that Gour took Jati to mean procreation? That Gour took Jati to mean procreation seems to be highly unlikely. Jati means caste or a clan and Hari Singh Gour would definitely have know that.

I read MN26 and think it is consistent with Gour's interpretation. Indeed, what else could the following mean? ""Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search. And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement." MN140 discusses self-identification as a disease, and I think this is different from MN26.

MN 26 is not consistent with his interpretation. You did not read it. You do not understand it. Read SN 12.66. SN 12.66 says, the same as MN 26, that aging & death come from ACQUISITION (UPADHI). ACQUISITION MEANS ATTACHMENT. MN 26 says " acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them,". You did not read it. You did not understand it. MN 26 says: " acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them," " acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them,"

Why do you keep ask questions rather than merely obediently listen to my answers? Liberation in the suttas as as follows: " This, friend Visakha, is the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One....Precisely this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration: This, friend Visakha, is the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html

Liberation again is as follows: " I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging, released." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html

Again, liberation is as follows:And how is the monk a Noble One [Arahant] who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered? He has abandoned the conceit of self, has cut it off at the root, removed it from is soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again. Thus is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html

Indians appear unable to abandon the conceit of self. This must be why their Hindu religion believes in Atman or Self. It seems Gotama and his Arahant disciples drained the Indian genetic gene pool of enlightenment genes. India was left with the nonspiritual genes. This is probably why Buddhism became extinct in India but not Hinduism or Jainism. Indians were incapable of understanding Buddhism

You say: "If the Buddha felt that his son was a fetter, why did he have him? I am confused by the inconsistency between the rules he laid down for his monastic order and his own actions".  ANSWER: Gotama was not yet a Buddha when he had his son. He was an unenlightened layperson. He was married for 12 years without children. He lived in 3 palaces where he was bored/disinterested with sensuality. It seems obvious he made a deal with his father if he had a son he could leave the family to become an ascetic. MN 26 makes this obvious, when he left home in sight of his crying parents.

Why is asking questions a taboo when I see inconsistencies? Why should I obediently follow everything without questioning it? The Buddha himself said that one should not accept anything until it appeals to one's common sense. Why do you attack me, the Hindus and Indians? If you think Buddhism is different, you should calmly explain everything (only if you have the time, of course). I happen to be asking questions that anger you (and very easily at that). I do see a lot of merit in Buddhist concepts, but Buddhist ideas and the life of your founder are subject to as much scrutiny as are others.

All you say in the way of refuting my assertion that MN26 is consistent with Gour's interpretation is the following "MN 26 is not consistent with his interpretation. You did not read it. You do not understand it. "! You provide no analysis to refute what I say and instead point me to something else. And start attacking me, the Hindus and Indians personally for being conceited. I have no interest in Hinduism or any other organized religion. I am just interested in ideas wherever they come from.

I see that beneath this apparently peaceful demeanor is blind confidence that you are the only one who understands what is being conveyed, and that others who don't understand you are flawed. How are you different from the followers of any other faith who think that they are the only ones who are right? Religion has some good ideas but they are sullied by the expectation that one be blindly subservient to authority and follow specific routines and rituals without asking any questions, and by making ad hominem attacks whenever any extended questioning or opposition is encountered.

By the way, Hinduism, in principle, is very tolerant and accepting of other ideas. It is a way of life rather than a religion, and it does not have any central authority that demands blind obedience. Of course, it has its own flaws. I don't see the same open-mindedness in other faiths including Buddhism. As for your explanation that the Buddha made a deal with his father to have a baby, I don't know how to react to a situation when somebody makes a deal to bring a child into the world and then abandons it when it is born!

Buddha's son was born and named before Buddha was Buddha. Back then Sidhartha was just a guy seeking solution to the problem of death.
What he then discovered is that our "notion" of individual death hinges on the "notion" of individual existence. If we think in naive terms, we think in terms of separate things: this THING is born, now the SAME THING lives, now the SAME THING changes, ages, deteriorates, now the SAME THING dies and is gone. This is an identity-based thinking. Even though nothing in the person stays the same from birth to death, we think it is the same person. Even though everything in that person, from food, to air, to thoughts, to impressions, to active impulses, is in continuous exchange with the environment - we still keep thinking in terms of a separate entity born, living, and dying by itself. This primitive way of seeing things is why we experience death as (bad) ending.
That the Buddha's teaching is about notions, the problems the notions create, and liberation from notions - is a standard interpretation of Buddha's teaching that was confirmed and not disproved by every new generation of Mahayana Buddhists studying Dharma from scratch for over 2600 years.

It means little that Dharma was not disproved for 2600 years or for 10000 years for Dharma to be valid. There are many ideas that were held dear for millenia and which were eventually found to be wrong or flawed (geocentric theory of the universe, for instance). Of course, our confidence in any idea grows as it repeatedly clears any attempts to verify it. That is not the case with religion but I digress. When did Gotama see the sights of the old man, the man afflicted with disease, and the corpse? Was it after he had Rahula or before?

By the way, I agree with this "That the Buddha's teaching is about notions, the problems the notions create, and liberation from notions -". These teachings make perfect sense to me. I was only saying that any idea needs to stand on its own merit and not on the merit of its being around for n number of years. And this idea does stand on its own merit - at least so far as I can see. My main question was about the Buddha's life in relation to his having a child when there are statements in the scriptures such as the one in the next comment box.

"Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search. And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement."

The Buddha didn't have a son, the Bodhisattva did.
It may not seem simple but it is very simple. If you want to understand what is at the root of truth, if you want to find out how tangled the mind is then what is born and what  dies is to be witnessed moment by moment. The reaction to what is born and dies  proliferated mindlessly is a distraction from the truth, another tangle in the mind, another brick in the wall.

What would happen to a Buddhist monk if he had a kid? What would the Sangha do to him? Would the monk be able to get away by saying that he temporarily ceased to be a monk when he conceived? That it was not him but a man driven by passion who did what he did.

Bhikkhus can get away with a lot of things but that isn't one of them. Should any bhikkhu participating in the training, without having declared his weakness, engage in sexual intercourse,  they are defeated and no longer in affiliation.

Why not? Why can't he argue that when he engaged in sexual intercourse it was not him but another person at another time and place? You write above "The Buddha didn't have a son, the Bodhisattva did." Conventionally, the Buddha and the Bodhisattva are the same person but not so according to Buddhism.

Because the monastic was never a person or  another person or anything. It isn't a matter or right or wrong. It's a matter of causes and conditions that either lead to suffering or don't lead to suffering. Conventional reality isn't bad or not useful but the confusion between concepts and what actually is, leads to suffering.

What I mean to say is that when you wrote that "The Buddha didn't have a son, the Bodhisattva did." you implied that the two were different. So why can't a monk who has a kid make an argument that the person who conceived was a different person when he conceived?

Every word I wrote was conseptual but reality doesn't admit of distinctions, we make distinctions out of utility & necessity like with social interaction. So when an enlightened one has to communicate with oneself or other people,  distinctions are made mindfuly while things are witnessed just as they are. Moment by moment there is no Bodhisattva or Buddha or Sangha. We are way too used to thinking conseptualy but when one thinks, it's just thinking.  When one hears, it's just hearing. When one feels, it's just feeling. We find it difficult to let go of reacting to the content of our thoughts.

How is what you write the answer to my question?

I understand your frustration but if you just witness the moment by moment experience as it comes through the senses instead of getting tangled up in ineffable words then your question will eventually be answered by your own direct knowing. It's so simple and obvious but we complicate it with our shortcut concepts. This is an approach  to objectively witnessing the subjective wilderness of the rise and fall of one's own experience. What don't you understand?

Here is my question again. When you wrote that "The Buddha didn't have a son, the Bodhisattva did." you implied that the two were different. So why can't a monk who has a kid make an argument that the person who conceived was a different person when he conceived?

Nothing is different so there is no reason to make an argument. I made a distinction for the purposes of utility but my meaning was different than what you apparently think I meant. You're making a distinction and you think it's reality. Reality doesn't come with a dictionary, right? Reality doesn't say this is that or this is different from that. It's just reality. There is nothing to believe , reality in the sense that I mean just is as it is right now.

By the way, in case you didn't know, it is possible for one to have a wife & kids and become a Buddhist monastic but they can't make kids or become married when they are a monastic.

So what exactly did you mean by "The Buddha didn't have a son, the Bodhisattva did."?  It is certainly possible to be a monk after having kids, but it would entail abandoning your family.

The Bodhisattva wasn't perfect but the Buddha is. The Bodhisattva didn't have a son either. Only in a conceptual sense is this true and we make up conseptual reality, do we not? If conseptual reality is made up then is it actually reality?

You write now "The Bodhisattva didn't have a son either." Earlier, you wrote "The Buddha didn't have a son, the Bodhisattva did." So what is true?


text:
View of Thervada and Mahayana Buddhism on where Conciousness is located
Does these 2 types of Buddhism claim that conciousness is located inside our brain or somewhere else, beacuse I have started studying a Thervada monk that claims that conciousness is not inside the brain which makes me confused and seems not logical for me to accept. What did the Buddha teach?

Welcome to this humble Buddhist forum

The monk is correct. Sorta like electricity needs a light bulb as a physical medium to manifest its energy, but it'd be wrong to conclude that electricity is "inside" the light bulb.

You may need to make it clear what you mean by 'consciousness'. Where this is 'being, consciousness, bliss' it has no location. All locations would be in consiousness, not the other way around. .

According to buddhism, consciousness (vinnana) are characterized as originating from the ayatanas, our senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, touch, and mind).
Even though there needs to be a physiological base for our consciousness, there are more prerequisites for consciousness to establish itself, meaning that it emerges in the mind when any of these six different senses makes contact with external sense objects (for example ear - sound).
In other words, it's not until internal sense bases "contacts" with external sense objects that consciousness manifests itself through declarative cognitions.
According to the buddhist concept of dependent origination, to define consciousness therefore isn't just a matter of where it might be localized, there also has to be cognitions/perceptions in order to properly determine what it is.

Ultimatley views are wrong views. They are made up by us and thus are not the focus of getting to the root of truth. Behind both Theravada and Mahayana views is a common aim  that discovers that consciousness happens moment by moment. That it has anything to do with the brain isn't admitted of by non-conseptual,  non-materialistic, experiencial present moment by present moment reality.

This is a question that modern scientists and quantum physicists are unable to answer. If you ask your family doctor, he would probably say that in medical college the subject of the location of consciousness was never discussed. Alan Watts, used to say that people think that consciousness is located between the two ears! This is indeed a difficult question to answer, without a proper foundation in the Higher Doctrine of Buddhism. The Buddha said that Consciousness along with 52 x Mental Phenomena and 28 x Material Phenomena are primarily responsible for the ''creation'' of the world around us. Therefore, one could argue that Consciousness is ''God'' the Creator. This subject has been discussed by Bhikkhu Bodhi, on utube, over many years commencing in 2013, in his Abhidhamma Retreats, conducted in New York. He also recommends reading material in support of the workshop.  Suggest you turn to the workshop for guidance.

Hmm. I thought it was the orthodox view that Consciousness is All. Not intentional consciousness, of course. Perhaps I'm about to learn that some Buddhists reject this view.

'The All' is in relation to mundane world. Feeling and Perception are dependent on the 52 and 28. Volition and Consciousness are dependent on these two phenomena. Nibbana is supra mundane consciousness and  is produced by intuitional insight (vipassana). Intuition implies no mundane perception i.e.  a subliminal mind. As far as I'm aware such a mind cannot exercise volition. Nibbanic mind has realized Anatma - No Self. Such a mind, devoid of volition, cannot create 'The All'. To such a mind 'The All' is an illusion - Maya. This is my take on  5 x Aggregates  at the mundane level of operation.

I don't think the idea is that the 'All' is a volitional creation. As you say, the mundane world would be illusory. In whatever way we define the All it would be consciousness. This would be the same as saying that nothing really exists, as per dependent origination. .

Yes, you're right. "Volition is one of 7 mental factors inseparably bound up with all consciousness." Therefore 'The All'  can exist without volition, as  in the case of an arahant. I believe, if the 7th link in the dependent origination is broken 'through feeling is conditioned craving', volition has ended and the yogi has hit the jackpot! He may experience Sunna temporarily, but he returns again to mundane consciousness, when off the cushion.  It is only at the point of Full Nibbana (parinibbana) that the 5 x aggregates would cease and along with it, mundane consciousness .i.e .'The All."

According to Abhidhamma...
The consciousness can arise everywhere in alive body.
There are 6 types of consciousness arising locations.

Eye sense location
Ear sense location
Nose sense location
Tongue sense location
Body sense location
Bhavaṇga-Consciousness-sense-location, Mano-sense-location.

Body sense locations are locating everywhere, so the Body Consciousness can locate everywhere as well.
There are  6 types of consciousness arising form-location as well.  Mano-sense-location, Bhavaṇga-Consciousness-sense-location, is not Hadaya-form-location, HadayaVatthu. See the explanation below.
The Actual Abhidhamma
ManoViññāṇa, Thinking, must arise at Mano-sense-location, Bhavaṇga-Consciousness-sense-location. Mano-sense-location often arising at the heart, Hadaya Vatthu, so ManoViññāṇa often arise at the heart as well. (Saṅgaha Chapter 3; Chapter 7)

Manāyatana - There is no special organ for the mind like the physical organs. By mind-sphere is meant the 'adverting consciousness' (manodvārāvajjana) together with the preceding 'arrest bhavanga' (bhavangupaccheda). See Chapter 1.

The Bhavaṇga-Consciousness is  Mano-sense-location, of ManoViññāṇa by Anantara-Paccaya, Proximity/Contiguity condition, because ManoViññāṇa can't arise without arising and vanishing before of the Bhavaṇga-Consciousness. (AbhidhammaPitaka Paṭṭhānuddesa Anatarapaccaya Uddesa; Saṅgaha Chapter 8)

Eye-consciousness-element, CakkhuViññāṇa, and its associated phenomena are related to mind-element, Mano,  and associated phenomena by contiguity condition. Mind-element, Mano, and its associated phenomena are related to mind-consciousness-element, , ManoViññāṇa, and its associated phenomena by contiguity condition.

However, sometime ManoViññāṇa is arising at Mano-sense-location but  not arising at the heart (HA), e.g. in Arūpa-Brahmma-Bhumi--Formless-sphere or heart surgery, so Hadaya-Vatthu is not IndriyaPaccaya, but the other sense locations are  IndriyaPaccaya (AbhidhammaPitaka Vibhanga;  Saṅgaha Chapter 3; Saṅgaha Chapter 5; Saṅgaha Chapter 7; Saṅgaha Chapter 8).

All these, too, (94) are found in the Sense-sphere. But in the Form-sphere three bases - nose, tongue, and body - are not found (96). In the Formless-sphere no base (96) exists.

and there is no HadayaVatthu in 20 IndriyaPaccaya ...

Eye,    2. Ear,    3. Nose,    4. Tongue,    5. Body,    6. Vitality,    7. Mind,    8. Happiness,    9. Pain,    10. Pleasure,    11. Displeasure,    12. Equanimity,    13. Confidence,    14. Effort,    15. Mindfulness,    16. Concentration,    17. Wisdom,    18. The thought, "I will realize the unknown",    19. Highest Realization,    20. The faculty of the person who has fully realized

In actual buddhist practice of mindfulness, it isnt difficult at all to experience that the mind isnt in the brain. Just notice when you are lost in thought often, and then pay attention to the body walking or moving and you'll see the body and all of its parts, including the gewy stuff in the head, isn't you.


text:
Can anyone give me a suggestion of a good monk to learn Buddhism?
Can someone give a name of a monk to learn Buddhism?
Thanks

How about "the Buddha"? But seriously perhaps this question could be more specific. What do you want to learn? What do you know already? Do you want to learn in person, or via a book, or pre-recorded video, or online chat? Does it matter which 'school' or branch of Buddhism, which country, which language?

I am really not at a level where I can understood the Suttas by my self therefor I need help to understand it from a monk that knows the sutras.

For the doctrinal/technical side of the Teaching, you can't go wrong with Bhikkhu Bodhi. He actually live streams his courses from Chuang Yen monastery every Saturday morning US Eastern time at 10 AM. Simply go to youtube.com and type: "chuang yen". Also check out his excellent book In the Buddha's Words

There are so many but just off the top of my head, Bhante Bodhidhamma is good for students that are a bit advanced & Bhante Yuttadhammo has a Youtube channel that I think works quite well. You might not think that a monk with a Youtube channel would work but he makes it work for beginners.
Teacher monastics no longer with us:
Ayya Khema,  Ajahn Chah,  Pema Chodron,  Mahasi Sayadaw and   Dogen are all examples of very skilled teachers each with their own unique yet appropriately conforming approaches.

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. Consider staring with:

Two Kinds of Language
Buddha Dhamma for University Students
Nirvana For Everyone
Natural Cure for Spiritual Disease
Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life
Anatta & Rebirth
Kamma in Buddhism

Hey DD, are you familiar with Ajahn Anan Akincano? Might check him out & let me know what you think of him.

Buddhadasa is for learning about Buddhist theory from.  Ajahn Anan Akincano i don't know about but many monks become the "flavour of the month". Kind regards

For samatha;
Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Sujato, Ajahn Kalyano, Ajahn Anan (EN)
In general the TFT seems to have a strong samatha training.
For mindfulness, ardency, alertness & discipline;
Ven. Yuttadhamma
For wisdom;
Imho you need to do your own analysis but you can entertain the ideas of the manyfold various teachers until you make up your mind in regards to the points of controversy.
For the more doctrinally accurate translations;
Ajahn Thanissaro
Foremost pleasant translations;
Bhikkhu Bodhi
There are many other monks who all have their own relative good qualities but these stand out as specialists in those particular fields as far as i can tell.


text:
Am I missing the point of Buddhism?
I have been on a few forums and Facebook groups and a lot of people on there seem to be missing the point of their practice.  What colour robes should I wear, how many breaths should I take per minute while meditating and (worst of all) what is meant by this word, in this particular translation, of this sutra.  No offence to anyone else here.  In "Hardcore Zen" by Brad Warner he make some comment about the people who go to the temples, sit there meditating all day, but for all the wrong reasons.
The principles are fairly self explanatory and as long as you live a good life as a good person, that is it.  Enlightenment aka "the same old, same old".  I know my life won't realistically be any better if I won a million punds and I am happy with that.  By all means swot up on the methodology but it will just make you a better "buddhist" as opposed to making you any happier.  Am I missing something?  I hope not.

This question isn't clear to me. I read it as saying -- "I read some facebook groups and forums and I don't see much point in what people talk about, not very interesting or useful." -- and that's about all it says! Lastly, "Studying methodology won't make you any happier", is that what you're saying?

@ChrisW I don't come from a strict western religious background, so buddhism just sort of clicked with me.  Study it, see what it means and then DO IT.  Studying for the sake of studying won't make you any happier, is what I mean.

well zazen isn't meant to have a goal, right? if focusing on robes helps with that then why not? i sympathize if they're not getting anything out of it outside seated meditation though

I created an account just to reply to you.
I've wondered a lot about this myself in fact. It seems like the obvious path, if one wants to be free. The question is: do we want to be free?
A quote by Ajahn Chah answers this succinctly: "When we talk about desires we know that everyone has them and wants them fulfilled, but nobody is willing to stop, nobody really wants to escape. Therefore our practice must be patiently refined down. Those who practice steadfastly, without deviation or slackness, and have a gentle and restrained manner, always persevering with constancy, those are the ones who will know. No matter what arises, they will remain firm and unshakable."
Now to my perspective. Your kamma (conditioning) has ripened in this lifetime such that you are more receptive to the path. This is a very big moment of choice for you, will you practice or will this time be squandered?
Secondly, upon questioning others people actions, it is good to realize that people are getting caught -- it is only the nature of samsara. It's akin to asking the question: Why don't people answer correctly all the time? Well if they knew the answer, they would! It is simply because the wisdom and mindfulness have not been developed for those individuals. May you walk your path and influence all living beings in the sangha that is the world.
As a word of advice, I would simply note when you see these thought come up as "judging judging". Do this noting non-judgemental and pay attention to how the mental state is. In my practice, I have found my judgement of others practice is rooted in bad intentions or some superiority. The teachings are incredibly simple, but yet not at the same time. As we practice, more and more will be unveiled. It's simple, but there is a deep profundity to the teachings and practice. Will you continue to realize them?
May you be safe. May you be happy. May you swiftly realize peace.

Thank you.  I can appreciate that someone new to the subject would have questions and the only way to get answers is to ask them.  I think that half the problem is that the people who answer, cloud their answers in a layer of mysticism as if that makes it clearer.  Answering a question with a riddle just seems like a bit of a cliche sometimes.

Personally, I am more of a secular buddhist.  I have read a few books on zen, got what I needed from them and here i am.  Even just keeping up the PMA needed for this is quite tricky.

@ThirdPrize That is indeed a large issue in many peoples practice -- Spiritual Materalism.
I would just be cautious with assuming that you "got what you needed". With any philosophy, there is always more to ponder and deepen and understanding of. It's like trying to read Being and Time by Heidegger and saying you understood everything on a first read, with no background
Just keep watching the mind and it will all become clear

As someone once said, “Do not try to use what you learn from Buddhism to be a Buddhist; use it to be a better whatever-you-already-are.”

Unless you are up there with the stream entrants, the deepest principles aren't self explanatory. One must want to experience them within Samsara to transcend Samsara.
Personally, I wouldn't follow Buddhism nessasarily, I'd follow the Buddha's core teaching that was repeated again and again from all angles of interpretation.

Buddhism is about ending all suffering. Stop worrying about what other people talk/do on the internet and practice the clear method the Buddha has taught on how to end suffering. In other words, work on eliminating your craving.

I do, I just wonder why other people don't.

Aha! Be mindful of the wondering ;)

Yes. You are certainly missing the boat, the same as the dry intellectual geek Brad Warner.
Right understanding & right practise will make the mind much much more happier.
The Pali suttas say "jhana" is "a world of exclusively pleasant feelings" (MN 79). The Pali suttas say: "Nirvana is the supreme happiness" (Dhp 203) that "does not fluctuate" (MN 140).
But, in this video, for example, Brad says about Nirvana: "You cannot have these experiences of bliss everyday". In the video, Brad appears to compare Nirvana to the temporary fleeing pleasure of sex.
Enlightenment is not "the same old, same old". It appears Brad Warner has never left American libraries and suburbia. That appears why Brad Warner appears dry & crusty looking rather than has a radiant beautiful complexion.  The Buddha said about his disciples:

Sāriputta, your faculties are so very clear, and your complexion is
  pure and bright.


text:
Can mind be free from becoming?
Can mind be free from becoming  (Suffering) ?
I should be and I should that.
I am thin and I want to be a body builder.
I am this and I want to that.
Can mind free from becoming?

Of course you can! If you want to be free of something, get rid of the cause of it. The cause of becoming is attachment. The cause of attachment is craving. Work on getting rid of the craving to end all suffering.

Yes. For more information please see an3.66
They understand:
‘Formerly there was greed, which was unskillful. Now there is none, so that’s skillful.
Formerly there was hate, which was unskillful. Now there is none, so that’s skillful.
Formerly there was delusion, which was unskillful. Now there is none, so that’s skillful.’
So they live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.”

I will attack this question from another points of view. There is a real paradox in the idea of the end of becoming. In the process of end of becoming, we are becoming more Buddhist or more serene.
This leads the natural question: Is Buddhism seeing the true ontology or is it making one see a Buddhist ontology?
This topic is rather dense and requires a lot of framework, so I will tell you, from faith, that the 3rd noble truth says there is an end to suffering and thus and end to bhavana (becoming).
If you want to read more, refer to "The Paradox of Becoming" by Thanissaro Bhikku. It is a beautiful read and leads to many insights, if one spends time with it.

I'd say no since it seems to me Mind is what we need to be free of becoming.

Becoming exists when desire exists. Desire for the abandonment of desire is the last desire and there is no more resolve on the synthesis of created phenomena after that abandonment.


text:
Satori and stream entry
Is Satori like a stage of stream entry? Is Satori only an intellectual knowing or something deeper than that?

Satori is not a Theravada term. If you want a Theravada answer better use a Pali term or an English word.

Yeah, right but  what do I know? Questions can't  be asked about the relationship between different schools?

Then you have to formulate the question that way. ex: Is there something similar to 'Satori' concept believed in Japan in Theravada Buddhism?

I wouldn't want to steal your question. That isn't really what I am asking, is it?

That's a suggestion based on your comment. Lets not turn this into an unskillful argument. :)

I'm really confused.

Be mindful of the confusion and every other experience. That's the way to gain wisdom which leads to enlightenment according to Theravada tradition.

Yeah huh? We can't argue with that.

@SankhaKulathantille I think Lowbrow is asking, "I know a bit about the definitions of Stream Entry (Theravada), and of Satori (Zen). Can someone who knows something about both traditions say, whether these are similar -- whether they're similar states or experiences described by two/separated traditions -- and/or in what way the two are not the same."

@ChrisW That is a better way to formulate the question

From the wikipedia entry about Satori:

Satori is considered a "first step" or embarkation toward Buddhahood

This is very much what Stream Entry means in Theravada. Everything else in that entry makes Satori appear to be the same thing as Stream Entry.
The meaning of Satori as "seeing into one's true nature" is also the same as the meaning of Stream entry when you consider that "one's true nature" in the context of Chan Buddhism is Nirvana/Nibbana.
Therefore it seems that these two terms do refer to the same thing.

In the context of Zen training, I think the word you are looking for is kensho.  The connotations associated with that word point to a fundamental change in consciousness and self perpection that is much more akin the Theravadan notion of stream entry.  Satori simply means insight.  While is can be used almost synonymously with kensho, it is much more often used to described fleeting, incomplete, and momentary insight.

i think you have this the wrong way around, so i voted down. all the best

The dictionary definition of 'Satori' reads:

sudden enlightenment.

At what stage a Bodhisattva has "sudden enlightenment" is hotly debated in Mahayana Buddhism, and some will weight that stage the same as stream entry, whereas others won't. The point really, in the so called sudden schools, is that with sudden enlightenment the practitioner has realized they are a Buddha, in a key way. Even when there is further to go. This can be "intellectual", though the term 'Satori' is common in zen, which famously discredits all intellectual insight.
I believe that kensho is talked down by Dogen; cf Rinzai Buddhism. Part of that will be secrarian, and partly it will reflect different conceptions of practice. But all zen Buddhism highly prizes "sudden enlightenment".

If you want to know what stream entry is and how it is achieved then I'd advise reading the Abhidhamma.
If you want to know what 'Satori' is in zen then practice zen, read its poetry, etc.
If you want to what 'sudden enlightenment' is in general, read important Mahayana Sastras and commentaries, etc..

I think you'll probably find that they are not treated as synonyms anywhere. Simply because surely all contemporary zen, even, acknowledges that Theravada Buddhism is a different thing.

If you're asking whether a stream winner knows anything someone with Satori doesn't -- or vice versa: give up now. A joke, but anyway Satori is an insight into Buddha-nature, and stream winners have right view in and for Theravada. Someone here can probably detail the qualities of each.


text:
Do Buddhists have a country or a religion to defend?
How is it that militant monks can justify waging war or violence? Is nonviolence not necessarily an absolute value  for the Buddha? What scriptures are  militant monks interpreting to justify war or violence?
Are the militant monks making more or less suffering? Is it right to make more suffering than you have to? Do they have to?
Is there groups that are a threat to Buddhists or the Buddha's teaching?

Do Buddhists have a country to defend?
Do Buddhists have a religion to defend?

Wikipedia discusses this in depth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

One needs to separate the teachings for monks from the teachings for laypeople. For monks, instructing the killing of or actually killing a human being in any circumstance is forbidden. Where as, for laypeople, killing is a training rule.

But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?
Well then, my dear, relying only on principle — honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court, troops,
aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of town and
country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let injustice prevail in the realm.
DN 26

Therefore, while a monk cannot directly instruct a layperson to engage in any type of killing, a monk can directly instruct a layperson of a duty to protect their society. If the layperson chooses to engage in killing to protect their society; that is the choice of the layperson (and is unrelated to the advice of the monk).
For example, I only once listened to a speech by the Burmese 'terrorist' monk Wirathu and I never heard Wirathu transgress the monk's Vinaya (even though I did not personally agree with the underlying intent of his speech).
Monks do not have any country to defend. But laypeople have a country to defend. Many of these laypeople consider themselves to be Buddhists and want to live in a country with a culture that is influenced by Buddhism. They don't want to live a country influenced by Judaism (such as in Palestine) or Wahhabism (such as in Saudi Arabia). They want to live in a Buddhist country, where there is metta,  patience & monks.
If Islam or Christianity, for example, ruled every country, the Buddhist religion may become extinct. History shows Christianity eliminated every religion it had power over and, under the (originally pluralistic) Islamic Empire, eventually, after about 500 years, Buddhism became extinct (when Turks and then Mongols took over the Islamic Empire).

So a militant monk would probably acting at the level of a layperson?

No. The militant monk is telling laypeople to protect their society. However, the militant monk may be corrupt. For example, about Rohingya, I think this is a common land grab by the Burmese government because the Rohingya land has oil & gas. Regards

The signaling virtue Buddist must have got ahold of something like the Radical Dharma (as if the Dharma can have an adjective). I know this layperson has felt threatened by it.

I'm surprised that doctrine related to "wheel-turning monarch" isn't what you'd consider to be later doctrine, added to make Buddhism palatable as a state religion e.g. for Ashoka.

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

See, this is the sort of question that can lead to undesirable answers....  some of which are clearly demonstrated in these comments.  If your answer is premised on defending "Buddhist countries" from Christian or Islamic influence, that is a textbook example of begging the question.  Do Buddhist countries exist?  Should they?
Are you willing to be consistent with your answer?  If you are willing to equivocate about extremism in Burma, would you also countenance Americans sponsoring revolutionary violence to "liberate" Tibet from China?
Are Buddhist countries even necessary?  Is it possible that Buddhist monks would be just as protected, better protected, by multicultural parliamentary democracies?
Is a wheel-turning monarch necessarily even a monarch?  Is it possible that the wheel turning monarch is merely an aspiration, a metaphor for rule of law, social progress, human rights?
Isn't it obvious that all past and present claimants of a wheel turning monarch have fallen short of the ideal?   Can we agree that the texts pertaining to the wheel-turning monarch are still useful, and authentic?
The Catholics have the idea of a just war, and one of the requirements is that it must be likely to succeed.  But Buddhism teaches impermanence and suffering; a defensive war or war of liberation is guaranteed not to succeed, at least not permanently.  In the Four Summaries of the dharma, Rathaputta questions the king and the king admits that, yes, he will lead his nation into an aggressive war of conquest in all four directions should the opportunity arise.  Anybody who is strong today will be weak some day.  Nobody gets to keep their money or land forever.
In Buddhism, God is not watching; there is no assurance of justice in this life, or justice for any specific individual or group of individuals.  It's all about long term trends, eons, the law of averages.
Therevada Buddhism teaches against violence, wielding power, owning land or possessions.  Nonviolence is one of the five precepts.  In Mahayana Buddhism, rules are made to be broken.  The Pure Fame Sutra says that the Bhoddisatva can violate the five precepts; when be goes to hell, his mind is unmoved by agony or distress.
Deitrich Bonhoeffer was a perfect example; he, as a Christian, believed in authority and nonviolence, but he attempted to kill Hitler regardless.  He was willing to go to hell if it would end the war and save Jewish people.
The object of Buddhism is not to decide if killing is permissible in certain situations, and then strategize accordingly. It's about, how will you maintain compassion and tranquility even when there is no possibility of justice or recompense?  How will you set an honorable example, for friend and foe alike, not for your benefit but for theirs?  If you miscalculate, and you will, can you face the consequences with courage?

It seems to me that undesirable answers are usually where the truth has been hiding. Could you elaborate what you are basically saying in a couple of concise sentences?

Yes, every Dhammika defends the Noble Domain, defends his right view and his chosen path, the Gems, his refuge, (re)legion.
And he gives up everything for his Domain and (Re)ligion, does not fight anything else then the plunder and occupations the defilements use to undertake:
AN 1.071-080: Kalyāṇamittādivaggo: Good companionship and others.
In this way the Dhammikas customs differ essentially from that of one holding on house, and on stands in this world, for Dhammika have abound the lower three fetters and all kinds of stinginess.
And: Usually consumer, householder think that they are worthy of being protected, thinking they are Arahats... and call others to fight for defend their low ways and objectivities. Mara will serve them, no worry.

Sounds good to me. Welcome to BuddhismSE.

Good householder Lowbrow

While violence and destruction is strongly discouraged in Buddhism, it is ok for a bonafide ruler or government ("wheel-turning monarch") to establish police and armed forces to:

protect and guard the people
ensure peace
ensure that justice prevails

However, they cannot go on the offensive and attack others for reasons related to greed or hatred.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline."
DN 16

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court, troops,
aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of town and
country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let injustice
prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the realm.
DN 26

Only when you become an Ariya (Sotapanna) you eliminate self-view hence the attachment to a country or religion. Lay people and non-ariya monks may protect the country and the religion with the Buddha's guidelines. This is why we need a strong lay support to protect Buddhism and the Sangha. Buddhism destroyed in places like Pakistan and Afganistan due to a lack of lay support and not having enough strength to fight invadors. However, I feel that invadors thrive in a country due to the lack of discipline by the masses. Buddhism was vanished in India but survive in places like Sri Lanka.

Burmese monks had to come to Sri Lanka and reinstate the Sangha. Buddhism nearly also die in Sri Lanka, but not due to military invasion, but due to ignorance or superstition of Sri Lankans. Even today, on Dhammawheel, we read Sri Lankan's that cannot understand Buddhism. Sri Lankans post on Dhammawheel asking Australians & other Westerns to answer their questions about Buddhism.

Good point. But Westerners learned Buddhism from Sri Lankans such as Bhikkhu bodhi. Even Pali text society was got help from Sri Lankans. However, your point was a good one. I am not interested in history. I learn Dhamma from anyone who teaches me.-) What I can recall is Buddhism was initially taken to Burma from Sri Lanka. I may be wrong.

The period between the 5th century and the 11th century, Sri Lanka faced continuous warfare which was carried out between local kings and foreign invaders such as the Pandyan and Chola dynasties of India. The war welcomed a dreadful era for Buddhists with many stupas and viharas being destroyed vengefully. However, King Vijayabahu I of Polonnaruwa managed to conquer the island in the year 1070 and started re-building the monasteries and stupas that were destroyed. Due to the countries depleted state, there were not enough bhikkus to ordain monks to r.https://lanka.com/about/interests/buddhism/

. Towards the end of the 13th century, Buddhism declined due to the invading Tatars.[citation needed] In the 14th century, another lineage was imported from Sri Lanka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Myanmar

Lay people and non-ariya monks may protect the country What does "may" mean, there -- does it mean they "are permitted"? Who or what gives permission? Or does "may" mean "might", i.e. that they are "able" to and sometimes do, unrelated to whether or not it is permitted?

What I meant was that lay Buddhists still protect their country and religion as any of their other properties.

"May" would mean that they "may" do it and not violate any precepts or what the Buddha taught, right?

What I meant was that lay Buddhists still protect their country Evidently so. But I think the OP was asking whether or how "militant monks justify waging war or violence" e.g. by interpreting scriptures.

You mentioned "with the Buddha's guidelines" without saying what the Buddha's guideline are, for example.

Buddha's guidelines are numerous. Observing five precepts, teaching of Singalovada and Parabhava sutta, etc.

94.5% of Thailand is Buddhist. You can read about Thailand's armed forced here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Thai_Armed_Forces
and there is Western scholarship on the uneasy fit with Theravada Buddhism and militarism (I suggest reading them, rather than asking for opinions of people with access to the sutras, if you want a real answer). Mahayana Buddhism even has "warrior monks"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sōhei
This book, Zen at war, on Japanese Buddhist militarism, is in fact quite famous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War
There is the idea of a Buddhist wheel turning monarch, best exemplified by Ashoka, who was famously a very cruel monarch before his conversion to Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka%27s_Hell
and whether or not he continued to be a sadistic torturer is a matter of historical debate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka#Violence_after_conversion

If your question is whether anyone "should" use the military to persecute non Buddhists, whether Buddhists "should" fight in wars, or whether we "should" obey any Buddhist state even when it runs against our ethics, the answer is of course no, no, no etc. (and Western scholarship supports this interpretation of the precepts), though of course reality is complex.