text:
Planting without soil & harm ideas: giving inspiration, motivation
My person thought of motivating, encouraging each other in supporting the foundation for meditation, complete Sila incl. right livelihood, if bound to house-life, viewing on the aspects of, planting food without soil & harm.
Maybe some of you here like to share each other not only motivation like:
Why could this be a good livelihood?
How could this be a good livelihood?
but also tips in how to do practical and simple without much material need and high tech.
How to do it for your own in least harmful way?
If wishing to share it foremost dedicated to the Sangha and it's devoted Noble followers, to have a change of higher merits, one can use the dedicated place here as well.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for a way out of that wheel)

Samana(if I am not mistaken) , If by " without soil & harm" you mean "my traces of bad habbits should not be there in devotees" then stop making or even a desire to make others your student or student of any human( one who is not enlightened) cause as a student,  we tend to follow our master's habbits.  Dhamma(right teachings)  is only teacher.
Along with this,  stop writing, "(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for a way out of that wheel)" everytime cause it gives creepy feeling of " someone wants to steal-away your ideas/theory or might blame you in future". Act independently,  act naturally, don't  bother about anything.  Old age is only to enjoy the merits of young&hot blood times not to be bound by bad or evil.

How can/could my person help good householder Alex? Nyom seems to be gravely stressed.

Thanks!  You asked me that's  enough.  You don't  need to struggle for me(well! not now).  Hope you are good in your health(mental & physical).  My metta to you & your enviornment.

If struggling for someone, would that help another or oneself, good householder?

Giving a metaphor-like answer on growing in Dhamma without soil (Nissaya) is also fine, if Nyom likes to give a useful share for his fellows here.

No need for me atleast!  helping hands, if raised with healthy mind induces good vibrations in oneself & another.

If so, then good to modify your Introduction text.

It all starts with food.

AN10.27:10.5: ‘All sentient beings are sustained by food.’ Becoming completely disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding this one thing, seeing its limits and fully comprehending its meaning, a mendicant makes an end of suffering in this very life.

To live, we must eat. And since we have physical bodies, we need physical food. That food must also eat and is sustained by conditions. There is much food on the Earth, but if we allow greed to take it all, then we starve. And die.
Because the food we eat must itself also eat, we have to provide harmonious conditions for a sustained abundance of food. We need to understand and practice permaculture, which is sustainable and ecologically aware agriculture.
And this brings us to the fifth peril of modern times:

AN5.80:6.2: In such conditions it can be expected that they will engage in storing up goods for their own use, and making obvious hints about digging the earth and cutting plants. This is the fifth future peril that has not currently arisen, but will arise in the future … These are the five future perils that have not currently arisen, but will arise in the future. You should look out for them and try to give them up.”

In many places today, humans practice slash and burn farming. Sometimes it  is blatant, as in the Amazon, where jungle is cleared for farmland. Sometimes it is subtle, where topsoil is consumed inexorably by imprudent and intensive farming. All these are unsustainable. Our children will starve.
But we can learn how to give back. We can learn how to sustain and feed the planet that feeds us. We can learn how to not to kill, not to slash and not to burn. We can all learn this. We all need to learn this. All of us need to understand this so that we can act for the greater good with awareness. This is not just about farmers and farming. This is a way of life for all of us to learn. With sustainable agriculture and gardening we can feed each other.
Try this one very simple, very difficult thing. Grow a plant that will feed you. It takes months to grow one head of broccoli. Try it. Try it with a friend. And when you understand how difficult this is to grow a single meal, you will deeply understand the heartbreaking importance of agriculture. It takes quite a long time and many helping hands to feed the world so it can feed us. Start now and help  feed the world. All the world. Not just humans. All the world.
Nurture the world or starve.

Regarding "planting without soil", I recommend Kratky hydroponics
method with soil in netpots. But that really is a thread for Gardening SE. Interestingly, hydroponics does address the "do not dig" prohibition of the Vinaya, but harvesting is still problematic from a Vinaya point of view.
Discussions are beyond the scope of StackExchange. For those interested, I've started another thread at SuttaCentral.net

Sadhu, so fare. maybe good to add that one uses most harmless food not to live at least, but to live on to escape the wheel of food and eater. May good householder feel welcome to share simple tips for simple people on the track to search for escape here:  http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,9634.0.html maybe soon some pictures of very simple ways, yet practical.

Indeed. This is an enormous and deep subject. I am myself but a student of permaculture. I was shocked at how hard it was to grow a single head of broccoli. Yet that struggle has inspired me to devote what life I have remaining towards understanding and supporting permaculture and wholesome food. Let us all reach out to each other and help with this. We cannot do this alone.

"Nurture the world or starve." isn't right. Nurture the world and you stay bond. Nurture what is worthy to nuture lead to escape and nothing to worry of those who are not to be shown that any food involvs harm for other.

Yes. You're right. Nurture the world or starve is incomplete. AN5.80 discusses four other perils. There is much much more to be aware of.

"Let us all reach out to each other and help with this.", get your way for 4000 monasteries, and millions of Buddhist with simple and practical solutions, leaving harmful hightech behind.

The flesh of the Son. Nyom might know it, should be leading, no matter whether the Son is traced in a beefsteak or in a tomato. Yet better ways are direct killing are useful, of cause.

At the very least, read the suttas and become inspired to walk the Noble Eightfold Path.

Would you follow those wakling or already done?

So, it's time to leave this food center here again. Much succes in leavong home!

"hydroponics does address the "do not dig" prohibition of the Vinaya, but harvesting is still problematic from a Vinaya point of view.", also kammical when already perceiving it a living being. There are, how ever, many householder, who don't perceive it that way, so for them such ways are great. A monk (Bhikkhu) of cause can not harvest. But actually they could plant, without breaking Vinaya or unskillful action, if looking not to let living being in the water, sink into soil and die. Much success with Nyoms undertakings, and if wishing to help out directly and very practical, he knows where.

My person suggest the Ashrams helper today, that he can lead experiments in the middle of the forest next the futur lay visitor hall, if good householder likes to give him assistance, as monastery sample, he may feel welcome.

Excellent suggestion. And how might one contact the Ashram's helper today in the middle of the forest to discuss experiments with hydroponics?

If other would do all efforts for one, where would the place for his own merits? People think often given is from above to below but great merits wouldn't work that way.

Maybe good householder wasn't that attentive, since shared already before: ដាំដោយគ្មានដី ការចិញ្ចឹមជីវិតត្រឹមត្រូវ Planting without soil & harm Hydroponics, one way, in just one case.

I posted on the newsgroup. http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,9634.15.html
I actually would recommend that monastics join a FB group such as https://www.facebook.com/groups/KratkyHydroponics/  since it was difficult to create informative posts on the sangham.net site

How could a monastic, if not alajji, if abstaining from not personaly given without strings, if not a householder in robes, ever join FB... and yes, own labor is harder then use others recources, rely on given is "harder" as to share taken, good householder. Also this is why there are small and great merits.

Alas, I have failed you. You will need to find your own answer. Please note that lotus flowers blossom in mud. FaceBook is just mud.

As if it would have been subjected for my person. Does Nyom think that it is proper to invest time in farming?. And yes, the Buddha askes one to come out of the mud first, leave home fist. It's like hydroponics. This area is called punna kiriya vatthu, the borderlands. Lotos also age, get sick and die in the mud.


text:
Losing faith in tibetan buddhism
I have been practising tibetan buddhism for the past seven years and I am losing faith now and it hurts. I don't know what to do. Can someone advise?

Faith in Tibetan Buddhism? Or faith in Buddhism? Which it is will affect the answer.

A good talk on it: The Buddha’s Relationship Advice

Care to elaborate on the root cause to why you lose your faith?

Are you thinking about the unfortunate situation with Shambhala International and the misdeeds of the Sakyong and failure of leadership? Or is there another issue that's coming up for you?

Hello, and welcome to buddhism.stackexchange. If you could elaborate on your question, it would make it easier for others to provide a proper answer for you and everyone else reading.

As you can see from people's comments (non-answer) it's hard to answer this question -- not specific enough -- it's phrased as an own-problem without enough detail about its cause or symptoms or the range of acceptable solutions.
Your mentioning "faith" though reminds me of this topic -- What are the differences/similarities in the concept of faith as used in Buddhism and Christianity? -- because it seems to me that Buddhism doesn't have much to to do with "faith" as I understand that word -- maybe it's more to do with "knowledge" (whereas "faith" it sometimes denotes an opposite or absence of knowledge). So almost the opposite of some expressions of Christian doctrine, I think that Buddhism is based on "what you know for yourself to be true" (not only "faith"), which is an attribute of the Dhamma.

The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā:
  visible here and now, immediate,
  inviting to come and see, effective,
  to be individually ascertained by the wise.

One example is AN 3.66, but the rest of it too, I think that true of all the stages.
Christianity to me only makes sense to the extent that its values are embodied in someone -- if you meet someone who acts like a Christian -- maybe that was an essential part of that religion, starting with the Christ being a person.
Quite possibly some forms of Buddhism (relationship with a teacher, maybe learning from experience) might be like that too.
I'm guessing that "loss of faith" might have one of three causes:

Believing in or having faith in a doctrine -- something supernatural perhaps -- without that doctrine's really making sense to you
Ditto having faith in some practice
Ditto having faith in some person or society

There are any number of possible remedies, I imagine:

Improve your understanding of the doctrine, ask questions perhaps
Improve -- or return to -- your practice, starting with "right view" perhaps

I can't tell you much about Tibetan Buddhism -- which is the only other part of your question. I understand it might involve some personal relationship (with a teacher) therefore possibly vulnerable to the third type of "loss of faith" listed above.
There are dozens of topics on this site which might be related to 'faith' -- see here -- you could browse those titles, to see whether any of those are asking what you're asking and might have an answer.

Buddhism now a day have many branches mahayana,zen, and ofcourse tibetian.But if u have research on early buddhist texts and lord buddha's life story u will understand ur self what content of buddhism is true and what content of buddhism forge  after the passing of Lord Buddha.As in Buddha's own words ..........
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
As u can see faith that have without a root is useless and will not last long.So if u want to build up a strong faith about Buddhism u have learn,research, and analyzes ur self  until u believe and accept with reasons and results that Dharma is true.
(As above Quote says Dont believe my answer simply u feel it right But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all)

The answer is in your question. Tibetan buddhism ? What is it? Why there’s another word before buddhism ?
The original buddhism has changed according to some people's perceptions. After that there are many flavours of buddhism available today.
You may try to find the core of the original buddhism instead of finding which buddhism is the correct one. Once you find the correct one you will feel the difference.

Thank you everyone! You guys are so wonderful!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What does this quote from the Lotus Sutra mean?

You, the richest person in the world, have been laboring and struggling endlessly, not understanding that you already possess all that you seek.

I saw this quote on Instagram and the caption accompanying this quote says it's from the Lotus Sutra. However, I couldn't find any analysis of it online. I had interpreted it as the person in question not knowing that he had already achieved nirvana, and is laboring and struggling endlessly to achieve it, but that didn't sit right with me. I also thought that it might've meant that he was working towards material goals, despite having all he needed to find happiness, but that seemed very hedonistic and contrary to Buddhist views to me.
What does this quote mean?

Pls. provide source of your quote, or from which chapter of the Lotus Sutra. The quote appears not a translation from the text of Lotus Sutra, but a different write-up, heavily coated with New Age icing

If you can't (provide a source) and want to ask, then it might be a good idea to read a more formal/complete translation of the Sutra (than a phrase on Instagram) and then ask about that. As you might see e.g. here there are many rather loose (albeit popular) translations on the internet.

Thank you @ChrisW and Mishu. After reading your other comments, I believe the quote is heavily doctored.

The quotation seems to state the central message of all mysticism. When we find out who we are we find out we have everything we'll ever need or want, but prior to this we labour endlessly for what we believe we need and want.

I suggest caution when analyzing quotes like this before seeing nirvana for the first time. It is extremely easy to be misled and fall into a "trap" when you hear any quote that says something along the lines of "you already possess all that you seek." If you have not awakened yet, do not read my interpretation of the quote as a call for you to stop your practice or stop seeking the truth. That being said, this is my interpretation.

You, the richest person in the world,

The first time "You" is being used in this sentence, it is referring to the illusory self. The human being we all believe we are when we first begin experiencing this world. This you is referring to a small part of your experience, the concept that you currently identify as what makes up your identity.

have been laboring and struggling endlessly,

This is referring to the struggle of Samara. Laboring is referring to the endless cycle of wanting something putting in effort to try to obtain it. Struggling is referring to the difficulties we encounter, as well as the suffering we feel when we do not get the things we want.

not understanding that you

Now this part of the sentence is where things get confusing, because the speaker is no longer using the word "you" to refer to the illusory self. The speaker has now (in a very confusing way in an attempt to be poetic) switched the meaning of the word "you" to refer to the inexplicable. Although it is incorrect for me to say, the clearest explanation I can give of the "you" that is being referred to in this context is the "you" that is "one with everything". Understanding that, things become a little more clear.

already possess all that you seek.

To fully explain this, a small explanation of desire and the process of forgetting is needed. This all comes from my personal experience, so take what I say with the normal amount of skepticism. Don't believe what I say, for unverified statements are what keep us trapped in the cycle of Samsara. Verify what I say in your own experience. It is through observing my own experience without belief that I was able to be whole.
It is impossible for one not to be themselves. I have been my true self forever and always, but there was a time where I forgot who I was. When one believes they are a human being, they are blinded by that belief. What happens is, a being who is infinite and eternal, suddenly believes that it is small and mortal. This process of forgetting can be said to be a process of exclusion. At first you are everything. Then, we begin to say, "I am not this, I am not that," etc. until we have come to the conclusion that we are not most things, but are something very small and insignificant in comparison to the universe. We know, deep in the core of our being, that we are not meant to be small and mortal. This instinct, the feeling of lack that permeates our experience, is what gives rise to desire. We only desire what we lack. We think, "I am not this, in order to be whole, I must attain this. Once I get this I will be fulfilled." But because we are everything, and it is impossible for a human being to attain everything in their lifetime, we are stuck in the endless cycle of Samsara.
So to quickly summarize: We only desire because we feel like something is missing. We feel like something is missing because we believe we are a limited number of things. We feel like we are a limited number of things because we have forgotten what we truly are, which is "one with everything".
Now, to finally explain the last part of the sentence: It is not saying "you the human being already possess everything you need in your life." It is saying that "you", the ultimate you, are everything that you seek. The speaker is talking past the illusory self, the human, and saying "You, the real you that is there, you are everything in the universe. Everything this human desires, is simply a part of your identity. The human does not understand that it, and the object of its desire, are both you."
It is attempting to describe the amazing plight of being human. It is like a wave in the ocean, chasing another wave. The wave says, I need to reach the other wave! I want to merge with that wave and become an even bigger wave, and then I will be whole! When the irony of the situation is, the wave is already the entire ocean.
I hope my words have been helpful to you in some way. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.

Now this part of the sentence is where things get confusing, because the speaker is no longer using the word "you" to refer to the illusory self. This is the kind of time when I'd want to inspect the original text -- for example, I don't know but perhaps it's possible that "you" here is an artefact of a translation into standard English grammar (which insists on verbs with subjects i.e. nouns and pronouns -- which I think Chinese can but doesn't always). I wonder what the original line of text is?

@ChrisW nailed it. The closest I could find is this: ... 以無價寶珠繫汝衣裡。今故現在。而汝不知。勤苦憂惱以求自活。甚為癡也。汝今可以此寶。貿易所須。常可如意。無所乏短。But the original text is completely different from the quote, the translation/quote almost like a new eassy writing belonged to the genre of that "New Age" voo... I suggest the forum/moderator to act on duty of the guardsman, a quote of other genre pretended to be from a Buddhist sutra must be refuted

@Mishu米殊 It's a reasonable question if someone doesn't know the answer (I can't say that the question isn't allowed). I can't answer the question either, I don't know the Lotus Sutra well. Occasionally someone has posted a question which I respond to by referencing that it's one of the Fake Buddha Quotes i.e. kind of New Age and not a close translation, but that site is only for references to Pali suttas, or anyway this particular quote isn't there. If you know better (about what the Lotus Sutra does say and how to interpret it) maybe that's for you to answer.

I happen to like literal word-for-word translations -- close translations or explanations -- but those are rarely published, people usually try to make translations sound like English.

I've googled extensively before posted the comments. The last method would be to search that 118 pages with my eyes, and brain. Yeah, word-for-word is better, many concepts can't be translated, esp. from Chinese to English. I did some translations always found I have to leave out 30% at least the meanings behind. Chinese has massive capacity of carrying content, English texts often end up doubling the text volume. But you only need to remember 500 characters to read Classical Chinese, and 3000 to read newspaper @ChrisW

Let's hope that this answer was, at least, a good explanation of the meaning of the English text,

@Mishu米殊 Which chapter in the Sutra is that from? Thanks.

From Chapter 8 (Page 58/118), Nico. It's a parable spoken by the 500 Arhats, not the Buddha. That's given by google, but also the closest to your quote I could find after quick scanning 118 pages

Thank you very much @Mishu米殊. I didn't really understand the mandarin version, but the English version tells a story of a man who had a friend sew a precious jewel into his clothing. Is that what the Chinese version says as well? Later, the poem goes on to clarify that the precious jewel is actually the words of the The Buddha, which has a very different connotation than the English quote.

Hi Nico! Yes, the Eng and Chi are telling the same story - story told by the 500 disciples (correction, not Arhats) who also rec'd the "endorsement/mark" from the Buddha of attaining Buddha-hood in the future. Lotus Sutra is sublime - my reading is that the real Lotus Sutra never written down to be read... The Jewel has layers of meanings, yes. One is the "words of the Buddha", two could be the "endorsement", three the Prajna-paramita... etc. if you read side by side with Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra... multiple layers of meanings is always an Eastern style but not sure about that of the West

Put simply - the unenlightened person strives to find satisfaction in external things not realizing that he has the root of all satiety within.  Buddhism directs us to find that root.

I also thought that it might've meant that he was working towards material goals
I kind of doubt that but who even knows, I would want to read that in context before venturing to answer. There are several ways in which it doesn't sound like the kind of theme you'd find in suttas, but I don't know the Lotus Sutra.
Speaking of material aspirations, and even being the "richest person in the world", I remember reading a quote from someone a long while back, and I don't remember who it was, but it might have been the Dalai Lama, talking about museums -- that he doesn't want to personally "possess" riches, that he's content instead to visit the riches in a museum, to see them there -- which is the proper place to keep them, where (according to my understanding) they might be secure and beheld by everyone occasionally.

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


text:
Recovery from Meditation
When a person trains a muscle, there is a necessary recovery from training before one can train again. I'm wondering if there's such a thing with meditation sessions?
If so, how much time between sessions is necessary or even desirable? Are there guidelines in Buddhism about the length of pauses to take and the amount of sessions possible in a day?

The basic rule is more is better. After this it's a matter of practicality.

More is better.  Period.  If you want some nuance to this answer, once you start getting above three hours straight in your sits, you start to get into diminishing returns.
The untrained mind and all of its obstacles and doubts is like a game of whack a mole.  You’ve got to keep swinging, every day, if you ever expect to make any progress.

Meditation is recovery: a recovery period from the strenuous activities of thinking and acting and doing. You'll find that if you meditate extensively, even your need for sleep drops to a minimum, because neither your body nor your mind needs down-time.
Of course, if you meditate from a place of achievement, as though you are trying to accomplish something specific and are thus training yourself to be a superior meditator... Well, that can be exhausting in its own right, though it is a stage all of us go through on the path.
Don't be obsessive about meditation. Daily meditation is good, but putting more than an hour a day into meditation is probably excessive (unless you are specifically intending to go the monastic route). On a three-day, ten-day, or thirty-day retreat you might spend as much as eight hours a day meditating, and that's fine, but you should take breaks for meals, walking, and other bodily necessities. You can — technically speaking — meditate for as long as you like (or rather, for as long as you're able), if you have the proper support system. I'm sure you've heard stories of gurus and monastics who've spent weeks in meditation, being fed and cared for by devotees. But for the most part, you can trust your greater self. Once you've established yourself well enough that you can comfortable meditate for an hour or so, just forget about time. You'll go into the meditative state, and when it's the right time for you to come out of it, you'll come out of it. Big-mind knows better than little-mind what's needed; little-mind just has to come to understand that.

If u know about Middle way then this will not be a problem.overworking always cause to exhaustion , not working will always end in failures,......For mediation u have first  do a research about different meditation methods and their practices  and build proper basic understanding about it.After that it will  help u to find a proper teacher to learn the proper techniques and good practices.Then u will be ur own guide  and u will undestand and make ur own schedule according to ur state of the mind.................Lord Buddha Life story explain it all if ur undestand well.Even he also become a disciple of three teachers and learn all methods used in those time to create his own way.Which we call today the Middle way.


text:
Meditation and Internal Tremors
Happy New Year to you!
I suffer from internal vibrations and PPPD and I've been trying to use meditation to calm my nervous system. Could any of you please suggest what I could do to further this and work on the amygdala too please? I also suffer from chronic fatigue.
Thanking you
Louise

Welcome @LouiseWA. Practicing Dhamma and Meditate will keep you away from all harms your mental and phisical strength increases.  This link Brains of Buddhist monks scanned in meditation study may help you to know benefits of meditation. So keep meditating.  Thank you.  Have a great year ahead.

Meditation is not a substitute for medical treatment. From a quick glance at the diagnostic criteria and treatment paradigms for PPPD, it seems that rehabilitation exercises and cognitive behavioral therapy are the typical approach, and meditation could supplement both of those — pay particular attention to posture and rising thoughts while you sit — but talk with your therapist about integrating them. If sitting upright for extended periods is too difficult, try pushing your cushion against a wall and leaning into it for support.
Generally speaking, meditation at the biophysical level is useful for relaxing and reintegrating the body-mind complex, which should help with anxiety and disorientation over the long run. But you'll get more benefit from it if you reach beyond the biophysical level. Don't merely look for symptomatic relief; try to still your mind properly.

In the west, we have this odd idea that meditation is only sitting on a cushion. The Buddha indicated otherwise:

MN38:36.1: They act with situational awareness when going out and coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; when eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping silent.

In addition, the Buddha has excellent advice about perceptions:

SN12.70:16.3: You should truly see any kind of perception at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all perception—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

I don't have PPPD, but I am going blind and suffer from double vision. Heeding the Buddha's advice, I understand these double visions as ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
Oddly, the distortion of perception has actually helped me understand the fickleness of perception. Perceptions come and go. They are impermanent and unsatisfactory.
Please do consult a doctor for medical conditions. And as you wait for medical resolution, simply be aware of the perceptions, using them or enduring them as they serve your practice for yourself and others.

This is not medical advice and you seek a doctor for your condition. The way I understand that Samatha meditation will not help with this condition. Samatha meditation generally suppresses your feelings and awareness. However, Vipassana meditation will help you as it promotes body awareness. Generally in Vipassana meditation, you learn to accept the way you and your body as it is with awareness. Also, make sure that you have good eating habits and a good daily exercise routine.

WEll if you feel dizzy all the time, stay in bed to cultivate samadhi with anapanasati. The best time to calm the kaya-sankharas and Citta-sankharas is precisely at wakeup before there is lots of mental proliferation and loss of physical energy (people who ''meditate'' after 9h of work are just too exhausted to be good at mediation).. And in your case, lying down would be the posture where you feel the least dizzy. IT's all win.


text:
Trying to Meditate Longer
I am currently meditating thirty minutes per day. I wonder whether I should meditate an hour instead or meditate for thirty minutes twice.
Basically, I meditate on compassion and after thirty minutes I'm not generating much of anything. I just sit there moving about on my chair, wondering about the time, etc.
Does this saturation after thirty minutes occur because I have always meditated this amount of time before? Or is it because I'm just not ready yet? In other words, are we used to whatever amount of meditation we're usually doing?
If this is so, would it be better to just always try to sit an hour if I'm capable? Should I just meditate as long as I can sit, whatever the quality may be?

Joggers or long distance runners didn't just start out running for hours. They build up their stamina slowly and steadily over time. So use the same approach for meditation. Build it up gradually and don't settle for the 30-min achievement. It's probably too short for any significant deep absorption state anyway. There're advanced meditators who immerse themselves in deep absorption for days.

This is great answer.

Right Immersion is the eight stage of the Noble Eightfold Path. It is upheld and nurtured by the preceding seven stages of Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort and Right Immersion.

AN7.45:1.1: “Mendicants, there are these seven prerequisites for immersion.  What seven? Right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness.

Circle back and deepen the seven prerequisites. Then, naturally, immersion will deepen.

sadhu, sadhu! without cause no effect.

Please do not enter into competing with yourself mode. Pushing yourself to sit one hour just to follow the clock does not bring much benefit to us. It is just misusing our power of will. Instead, better try to listen to your mind when 30 minutes is about to finish. What does it say? "Ah, I'm glad I'm finished!" And immediately after that: "But I should sit longer!" And the struggle starts. This might bring an important insight into how with all these shoulds and shouldn'ts we create our own suffering. Once you understood that, just relax and stay sitting as long as it is appropriate for the situation you are in. Sometimes it's 30 minutes, other times 45 or 60. But whatever are the minutes, the benefit is the same if you manage to maintain this kind of awareness of your mind's work and than manage to extend this awareness also into the rest of the day. Good luck!

Should I just meditate as long as I can sit, whatever the quality may be?

If you don't have good enough teacher, YES you should because you maybe get the problem and fix them yourself when the very long long time gone by. It is definitely better than watching TV.
However, if you have good teacher, NO you shouldn't because he will teach you the proper better faster tools to modify your living for the meditation, such as yoga before meditation, or body trick for longer sitting, etc. The meditation will be faster higher qualities and longer period by this way.

If your purpose of meditation is to achieve jhana, the quality of your concentration while meditating is much more important than the length of your sitting.
Jhana is defined in "The Path of Purification" as "The centering of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants evenly and rightly on a single object, undistracted and unscattered".
In order to approach this state of mind, one should try to eliminate any trivial thoughts and focus on your meditation subject in a period of time. So I think you should try your best to prolong the time you focus on your meditation subject without any trivial thoughts arising. Try not to resist or indulge in your thoughts. Just put them in the "background" once you find them. During 30 minutes of meditation, you may find that you can only concentrate for 5 minutes or even less. Making this concentration-time longer should be the objective.


text:
What meditation practice(s) are encompassed by 'asubha' (non-beautiful)?
What meditation practice(s) are encompassed by 'asubha' (non-beautiful)?
I've heard one teacher say that in the EBT (early buddhist texts), asubha practice only refers to 31 body parts, and later Theravada expanded it to include 9 cemetary corpse decay, and perhaps other practices as well?
Does anyone know for sure? In the pali suttas, most of the references to asubha do not specify a specific meditation practice(s).
Is AN 10.60 the only place where asubha is specifically assigned to 31 body parts?
I'd prefer to believe asubha meditation encompasses more practices than just the 31asb, unless there is conclusive evidence. Simply because in an oral tradition where memory of teachings is mandatory, it's helpful when a label, 'asubha' in this case, covers all the practices that could qualify for doing that job.
We know that the purpose of asubha (ugly or non-beautful), is to counter the effects of subha (beautiful) have in inducing lust/passion/desire for sensual pleasure, especially for sex.
Clearly the stages of decomposition of corpses, the discharge from the 9 orifices of the body, all qualify in accomplishing that goal.
AN 10.60 defines the practice of asubha as 31 body parts contemplation:

Katamā cānanda, asubhasaññā?
  And what is the perception of ugliness?
  Idhānanda, bhikkhu imameva kāyaṃ uddhaṃ pādatalā adho kesamatthakā tacapariyantaṃ pūraṃ nānāppakārassa asucino paccavekkhati:
  It’s when a monk examines their own body up from the soles of the feet and down from the tips of the hairs, wrapped in skin and full of many kinds of filth.
‘atthi imasmiṃ kāye kesā lomā nakhā dantā taco, maṃsaṃ nhāru aṭṭhi aṭṭhimiñjaṃ vakkaṃ, hadayaṃ yakanaṃ kilomakaṃ pihakaṃ papphāsaṃ, antaṃ antaguṇaṃ udariyaṃ karīsaṃ, pittaṃ semhaṃ pubbo lohitaṃ sedo medo, assu vasā kheḷo siṅghāṇikā lasikā muttan’ti.
  ‘In this body there is head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine.’
Iti imasmiṃ kāye asubhānupassī viharati.
  And so they meditate observing ugliness in this body.
Ayaṃ vuccatānanda, asubhasaññā.
  This is called the perception of ugliness.

summary of my research on this so far:
(lots of hyperlinks embedded within source link)
http://lucid24.org/tped/a/asubha/index.html
a-subha  = un-attractive
✅in EBT meditation, it refers to 31asb body parts contemplation. See AN 10.60, AN 6.29.
⚠300+ years after EBT, in Vimt. and Vism., Theravada re-defines asubha meditation to refer to 10 stages of corpse decay, and they reclassify 31asb under kāya-gatā-sati . It's important to know this, because in EBT suttas, an instruction to "develop asubha" is frequently mentioned, but without detail (examples: SN 8.4, SN 54.9). 31asb is immediately accessible, corpse contemplation considerably more complex.
• What's the purpose of asubha meditation? To counter perversions of our inverted perception AN 4.49, SN 8.4.
• But be careful, this is an advanced practice. Best to first have foundation in breath meditation SN 54.9.
• SN 12.61 and SN 12.62 is the more general case of seeing 4 elements via dependent origination 12ps as not being worth clinging to.

The core buddhism's meditation is not about body parts or anything related to outer world. It's always about the dependent co-arising.
Below is about the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person from Assutava Sutta

"Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted
  with this body composed of the four great elements, might grow
  dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why is that?
  Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down of this
  body composed of the four great elements are apparent. Thus the
  uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted, might
  grow dispassionate, might gain release there.

And below is about instructed disciple of the noble ones from same Assutava Sutta

"The instructed disciple of the noble ones, [however,] attends
  carefully & appropriately right there at the dependent co-arising:

Therefore based on above, the famous asubha meditation conflicts with that sutta. So the reason should be asubha is misinterpreted.
Explained detailed on Asubha meditation is in Kuddaka Nikaya-1 -> Asubhanupassi Sutta (If anyone found an english reference please add). This says that sabba sankharesu aniccanupassino viharathi That's the abstracted meaning of asubha meditation. (I'm referring to sinhala - pali cannon, sorry I can't translate this to english)
There's another sutta which clearly says that, Noble meditation should not be based on air, fire, water etc. I'll try to find the reference to that as well.
With this you might be confused by now. Yes, most of the meanings are mis-interpreted. The real dhamma is out there now, It will come famous but will take sometime to accept by people.
With Metta...!

Perhaps this -- https://suttacentral.net/iti85 -- I think that suttacentral has English translations of all the suttas.

There's a chapter (about 13 pages) about foulness meditation in the Visuddhimagga -- if that's what you're asking -- with includes corpses cut up and worm infested etc.
Visuddhimagga (Wikipedia)

The Visuddhimagga (Pali; English: The Path of Purification), is the 'great treatise' on Theravada Buddhist doctrine written by Buddhaghosa approximately in the 5th Century in Sri Lanka. It is a manual condensing and systematizing the 5th century understanding and interpretation of the Buddhist path as maintained by the elders of the Mahavihara Monastery in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka.
It is considered the most important Theravada text outside of the Tipitaka canon of scriptures, and is described as "the hub of a complete and coherent method of exegesis of the Tipitaka," but it has also been criticised for its non-canonical departures, and its interpretation of dhyana as concentration-meditation.

That references English translations if you'd like to read one, I think it's Chapter 6.
Some people prefer the suttas and not the Visuddhimagga (maybe more "EBT" than "Theravada").

I read through that chapter just now, and it's basically got an out of order version of the corpse stages in satipatthana sutta. Vism. calls corpse contemplation asubha, can classifies 32 body parts under kayagata of the 40 meditation topics. I'll take a look at Vimuttimagga, their 38 meditation subjects are slightly different, I seem to recall they have contemplation of worms and parasites (in a living body, not a corpse)

Some people are engrossed with the beauty of oneself or that of others. This is a perversion (vipallasa) of seeing what is impure as pure. For more see Vipallasa Sutta.
Asuba contracts the perception of beauty by:

seeing the constituent part o organs which bake the whole which one considers beautiful
seeing the decaying nature of the body which one considers beautiful
seeing the arising, transient existence and passing away nature of the body

This practice neutralises the minds tendency to obsess with beauty. But one must be careful that one does not start loathing the body as impure as this leads to the other end of the spectrum. There are cases where monks and people have committed suicide due to this.
This is mentioned in: Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta, Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta, Sati’patthāna Sutta


text:
Do Mahayana Buddhists explain birth and extinction in the same way?
Nirvana is the extinction of rebirth, and birth is its arising. Right?
Is the debate throughout Buddhism on the "difference" between samsara and nirvana one of how to explain, rather than describe or reach etc., the two? So that when we read the Buddha say the two are the same, that means that they are explained in the same way, not that they appear to be the same thing.

From the beginning of the wikipedia article

In the Buddhist tradition, Nirvana has commonly been interpreted as
  the extinction of the "three fires", or "three poisons", passion
  (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidyā). When these
  fires are extinguished, release from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra) is
  attained.

I believe all extant Buddhist traditions, including theravada, believe that we are reborn from moment to moment: a lifetime as much as the aggregates at an instant. Also, see 'dependent origination'.

Both the Sarvāstivāda [the Mahayana's tripitaka] and the post-canonical Theravāda constructed a
  radical doctrine of momentariness (Skt., kṣāṇavāda, Pali, khāṇavāda)
  that atomizes phenomena temporally by dissecting them into a
  succession of discrete, momentary events that pass out of existence as
  soon as they have originated

This is true of the Abhidhamma, see Karunadasa:

in the Pali Suttas, unlike the Abhidhamma, the notion of change is not
  presented either as the doctrine of momentariness or as a formulated
  theory of moments... the Pali suttas say that it is peculiar to the
  Abhidhamma.

And this from Charles Bartley

After the death of an enlightened one there is no rebirth

Or this from Keown

At the age of 80 he passed away into final nirvana, from which he
  would not be reborn

Moreover, non-abiding is likewise the end of rebirth. Tharpa:

Non-abdiding in nirvana in the irreversible cessation... of all rebirth

The Buddhists personalists -- which no longer exist and shared in much the same sutta basket -- believed not just that only a sentient being could create -- in series -- a new mind-body after death -- all Buddhists claim this -- but that something was the same during its life.

it is the pudgala that appropriates and sustains a body for a
  certain amount of time.

Thank you for the edit and the quotes are clear. I'm not sure I understand the question though. You asked, "Do Buddhists explain birth and extinction in the same way?" -- does that mean simply, Do all Buddhists and all schools of Buddhism have the same way of explaining what 'birth' means? Plus do they all agree on how to explain 'extinction'?"

You mention Mahayana and the difference between between samsara and nirvana. I guess that derives from Nagarjuna's saying "nirvana is samsara". As such that's not a topic which "all Buddhists" (nor all Buddhist doctrine, all explanation) are concerned with (especially "non-Mahayana" suttas), so ... for that reason too I didn't understand the question, where it's asking about "all Buddhists"?

ok i tried to edit it to clarify, sorry. it's quite a strange question, really

how / why has such a well referenced and clear question been downvoted so much?

I can't tell you. People downvote for all sorts of reasons. Maybe one downvote was left-over from when it was less clear, maybe another one was (I can only guess) due to its asking about Mahayana or rebirth or something, which wasn't what somebody to see in a question.

@ChrisW yeah i dunno, people have their opinions i guess

The idea in Mahayana is not that they appear to the same thing since if we are ignorant they certainly do not, or that they are explained in the same way. The idea is that they are not different things. As ever we can refer to blind men feeling an elephant.

There is no difference in manner or extent between the rebirth we experience from moment to moment and the rebirth we experience from life to life. To misunderstand this is to misunderstand the subtlest meaning of the Buddha's teachings on emptiness or anatta.
Therefore, think about what this means for your question. When an enlightened one first becomes enlightened and reaches nirvana does an enlightened one continue to exist from moment to moment? Does he not exist from moment to moment? Both exists and does not exist? Neither exists nor not exists? Whatever the answer... then to that exact same extent and manner an enlightened one will continue to exist from life to life. To say otherwise is to assert that something has materially changed such that after nirvana an enlightened one continues in that very life, but utterly ends or is annihilated at the end of that life. This cannot be the case. It would mean an enlightened one substantially existed or inherently existed in some way and that this ended or was annihilated at death.
It is important to know the manner in which the three poisons end. The real liberation comes through knowledge or the extinction of ignorance. From this, the other poisons are extinguished as they rely upon ignorance to sustain them. Nirvana is nothing more than waking up to the knowledge of reality as it really is rather than by perceptions and conceptions clouded by ignorance.
Think about what Nagarjuna is saying here:

It is not asserted that the Blessed One exists after his passing away; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and does
  not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
Even while he is living, it is not asserted that the Blessed One exists; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and
  does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana; and there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvana and samsara.
The limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara: one cannot even find the slightest difference between them.

Verse 17 and 18 assert that there is no distinction between the way an enlightened one exists from moment to moment as compared to life to life.
Verse 19 and 20 draw on the prior verses to show there is no distinction between nirvana and samsara. Nothing has materially changed except where before there was ignorance now there is knowledge.
It is like waking up from a dream even as the dream perceptions continue... there is no longer any doubt that one is perceiving a dream. Not one iota of doubt. The ignorance of the dreamer has been replaced with the sure knowledge of an awakened one.

this is a good answer, thanks. i agree with it. but it is also the buddha's "last life" -- am i not right there?

+1   In short for Mahayana all distinctions are conceptual, and this would include Samsara-Nirvana, It requires the reduction of all categories of thought. .

Short answer is no sorta_buddhist. If you post a new question I can try to elucidate a longer answer, but I'm wary of adding a lot in the comments as it is discouraged for a good reason.

I know really little of Mahayana doctrine, sorry.
For a start some people talk about "perception" rather than "appearance".
The "appearance" of a thing sounds like it's some inherent property of that thing -- which is contradicted by the doctrine on emptiness, isn't it?
Whereas "perception" talks about how (and/or whether) you perceive it -- if "appearance" sounds like it's "objective" then "perception" sounds more "subjective".
And I don't know but I guess that "nirvana is samsara" is a statement about perception -- that "nirvana" is a dualistic and value-laden statement, and therefore etc.
And is the vedanā doctrine related to that, or is that quite different?
But anyway that is (about "perception"), as well as possibly about "appearance" -- which I guess means (in a Mahayana context), "where do you draw boundaries which distinguish one thing from another?"

And the first part of the question asked about the difference between "explanation" and "description" -- but I guess I see no practical or significant difference between those two words, so, no go there.

You mentioned "reaching" too.
That might be a temporal statement. For example SN 56.11 talks about things which are "to be done" (in future), "are done" (presently), and "have been done" (see also "Perfect (grammar)").
The suttas talk of a gradual training (and step-by-step explanations).
I think that ("gradual") is true of Tibetan Buddhism too -- but it can be a subject of debate, so maybe different schools etc.
There's some Buddha-nature doctrine: I think one might consider whether that means that  things 'can' have -- or whether they 'already' have -- that nature.
You might see also this answer for one description (from Shin) -- possibly the Brahmana Sutta (about "going to the park") from the Pali suttas.

As for this ...

I believe all extant Buddhist traditions, including theravada, believe that we are reborn from moment to moment

... then, "maybe yes, something like that ..." -- but that's possibly not the only truth. I think that traditional Buddhists see it (whatever it is) as being true over several time-scales -- moment-to-moment, life-to-life, even aeon-to-aeon.
Perhaps one (educated) view is that if rebirth is moment-to-moment, then "death" too is something of a fiction. Something like this answer -- What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth? -- which I think is Theravada, might be orthodox even if some people concentrate more or only on what's "evident" etc.
I don't much want to get into describing what or who is reborn. I think that the Pali suttas suggests that's "only suffering" -- Vajira Sutta.
Also "identity views" or "self-views" (including "I do or I don't exist") are an origin of suffering, and a thicket of views and a product of unwise attention.
Whether and when the Tathagata "exists" is famously "undeclared".
And that too might be "gradual", at least according to the Theravada doctrine, see e.g. How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
In Mahayana (and perhaps before) the existence or body of the Buddha came to be associated with the Dharmakāya.

this is a long answer, and it's not clear if you are trying to correct the question -- which i don't think does have any mistakes in it

Perhaps I was trying to address the question, as I read it -- but given your comment perhaps I still don't understand the question as you intended it.

@sorta_buddhist That sounds to me like a Physics question. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

ok well it comes down to a question on philosophy: whether we can explain the direction of irreversible events https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/69398/can-real-events-be-irreversible because if not then birth and death -- as universals -- i'm sure have the same explanation. which in turn may suggest other key buddhist beliefs.

I think the Buddhist doctrine is that "sankharas are anicca" -- i.e. that "things-put-together are impermanent" -- which agrees with "entropy". Plus "dependent co-arising" about how things are constructed. Plus "emptiness" which (amongst other things) suggests that our definitions/perceptions of "things" are themselves fabrications (and to be viewed wisely).


text:
Is Buddha nature everywhere the same?
Is Buddha nature everywhere the same?
I don't think so, that seems wrong. But original enlightenment is always everywhere bliss, right? So how can Buddha-nature, which I would translate into, rather than "awareness" as the early Korean Son master Chunl's translators do, place, ever be impermanent independent of the body?
Without rupa, form, "awareness" -- or place -- is presumably just nothingness, unless original enlightenment -- just like enlightenment itself -- can be lost and gained?

I need help understanding the question. The idea that Buddha-nature might be a variable seems odd to me. What leads you translate this as 'place'? It's a word that seems inappropriate for a placeless phenomenon. I'm a little confused as to what is being asked, but this may just be me. . .

Is Buddha nature everywhere the same?

Yes and No. As Najarjuna stated: Neither one nor different (非一非異).
Also as the Heart Sutra stated: Neither arising nor ceasing, neither defiled nor pure, neither increased nor decreased, therefore formless in Emptiness it is; no Taking, Thinking, Conducting or Cognizing; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or mind; nor vision, sound, smell, taste, touch or phenomena; no dimension of eyes so forth even no dimension of consciousness; no ignorance also no ending of ignorance, so forth even no aging-death or ending of aging-death; no suffering, aggregating, cessation or the path, no wisdom also nor has any attainment. (This supposed is addressing to Śāriputra. But only few understand who or what is "Śāriputra" in the Heart Sutra. Xuanzhang translated it as 舍利子, not 舍利弗, the later is common translation for Śāriputra.)
Because this "Buddha-nature" is not an object or concept, anything the human mind capable of conceiving is not it. Like you can draw the moon, photograph the moon, look at the moon, but you cannot touch it or hold it in your hand. You might argue that the spaceman can touch the moon. But no. Think about it, he is only touching the moondust. Therefore the teachings can only teach what it is not.

Without rupa, form, "awareness" -- or place -- is presumably just nothingness

In the strict sense, we cannot talk about nothingness either. Many talk in our common language as if "nothingness" does really exist - see the mistake? Even the 7th Dhyana the Sphere of Nothingness, that nothingness is just a "pretence" - explaint by ancient meditation teachers in the Sutras. It is a kind of stoppage of mental activity or conceptual proliferation. Hence the Sutra said one died at the 7th Dhyana will be reborn in the Asamjnisattvah Heaven (the heaven without thought) and followed by the stupid animal realm.
Ultimately, talking about Buddha-nature perhaps a good exercise, but only seeing it gives the real taste.

All Arahants are the same mentally only differ from the appearance and skills. I can't locate the supporting sutta right now. The same applies to Buddhas. For instance, Paceka Buddha's can't teach Dhamma to others.


text:
Nature of True Cognition
What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth? Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process? I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction.
In addition, how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism? How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself.
Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism? Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt?
So to clarify, these three questions are respectively asking the nature, the importance, and the consequences of truth in Buddhism.

The true cognition in Buddhism is tautologically defined as directly knowing and seeing things as they are.
The explanation of this is threefold.
First, this means a mode of cognition without a contradiction, not prone to contradicting evidence.
Second, it means a mode of cognition which, when taken as a  basis for decision-making and action, does not lead to conflict or suffering, but to peace.
Third, it is cognition that is an extension of the ontological nature beyond words, beyond generalizations and concepts, beyond discrete representation.
This last point means, this cognition is so featureless that it may seem like there's none, and yet it is actually a lot more accurate than our naive crude models we take for the truth.

What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth? Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process? I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction.

The epistemology in buddhism is a tricky one, and does not easily lend itself to western philosophical concepts as far as i can tell. However, i see no claims within buddhism that the path to enlightenment is a strictly deductive practice. The onus is on the practicioner to verify dhamma through empirical (if you will) observations. For the latter, right mindfulness and right concentration plays a huge part.

In addition, how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism? How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself.

It is increasingly important depending on what stage of enlightenment you are representing. However, true understanding is not the primary goal, but rather a consequence of relinquishing the fetters binding us to suffering.

Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism? Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt?

I think it's hard, perhaps impossible to understand the immaterial realms/arupa dhyanas with concepts based on the material realms/rupa dhyanas. To nuance this, one can of course look into the several stages of dhyana for a more detailed rundown of the different progressive characteristics of concentration.

The truth of Buddhism is directly verifiable in the context of its objective, which is the end of suffering. Indeed, this is laid out in the Four Noble Truths.

SN56.15:1.5: “Sir, I remember that suffering is the first noble truth you’ve taught; the origin of suffering is the second;the cessation of suffering is the third; and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering is the fourth.

Within this system of axioms, truth is indeed verifiable and deducible.
Conventional belief systems are rooted in identity view, which is incompatible with the four Noble Truths. In other words, if one assumes the truth of identity view, then it is a struggle to have faith in the four Noble Truths.
In mathematics, we must declare our axioms in any proof of truth. For certain sets of axioms, we end up with Euclidean, flat geometry. For other sets of axioms, we end up with hyperbolic geometry. Truth is therefore experienced relative to an axiomatic basis, which is nothing but a set of asserted beliefs. Truth is really about consistency and applicability. The utility and scope of any system of beliefs is its ability to predict outcomes verifiable through direct experience.
Cognition is therefore dependent on axioms, core beliefs held to be truths. And the fruit of that cognition is completely bound up with those beliefs. For those who believe in materialism, the fruit is that which killed King Midas. For those who believe in eternal life, death awaits unconquered. For those who believe in the four Noble Truths, the end of suffering is directly verifiable.
Indeed the practice of Buddhism is basically the gentle erasure of false cognition based on identity view. For if identity is nothing but continued existence of cravings, then one might skillfully wish and practice for the truth of:

AN4.198:15.5: living without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.

What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth?
Upper-case Truth would be Being. As Aristotle notes, the only certain form of knowledge is 'knowledge by identity'. We can know what we are. All else is speculation.
Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process?
Definitely not. You might have made a calculation error or misperceived the empirical facts.
I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction.
No absolute truths are verifiable by deduction. This would be the reason why any purely scholastic metaphysics is hopeless, as history shows.
In addition, how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism? How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself.
Well, we have not made much progress if we have not ascertained to some extent the truth of the teachings. As time goes by truthful cognition would be vital but it would not be possible at the start, prior to understanding something of the nature of Reality and the relationship between cognition and consciousness, so the best course is to not worry about deduction and just sit and wait to find out, much as the Buddha advises. I prefer to do the sums, but this does not bring 'true' knowledge, only good arguments for dealing with sceptics.
The proviso would be that it is possible, as Nagarjuna demonstrates, to demonstrate in logic that a neutral metaphysical theory is the only one consistent with reason. This is lower-case knowledge, but valuable and important nevertheless. It surprises me that more Buddhists do not realise that the teachings solve all formal metaphysical problems.
Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism? Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt?
Yes, timeless, universal and beyond doubt. But only when we know it is. If we do not know then it is not knowledge. Think of it as an immediate knowledge of pain. When we have an immediate knowledge of pain we do not doubt it. Immediate knowledge of truth is incapable of doubt, only of incorrect interpretation. For the true sage their Knowledge is their living Reality, no more questionable than 2=2=4 and possibly less so.
So to clarify, these three questions are respectively asking the nature, the importance, and the consequences of truth in Buddhism.
It's a good question and much more could usefully be said. The essential point is that Knowledge is not a relative phenomenon. Rather. it is attained by a collapse of the knower-known distinction. Thus the Oracle's advice to 'Know Thyself' since then, apart from trivia, we will know everything there is to know.
Bear in mind that this is in some ways a Mahayana answer. Other traditions pay less attention to logic and metaphysics. In Buddhism we either know or we don't, and while performing calculations may tell us where the knowledge lies and give us confidence in the practice it cannot produce upper-case Knowledge.

The unfortunate truth about Buddhism is that the more you study it, the more it seems that no one can really figure out what is real anymore. Every expert has a philosophy that leads further away from the core and the core never seems to satisfy much because it contents itself to turn your quest for answers into a shell game, especially where celebrity experts on the subject concern themselves with your destiny. Why else would you entertain Zen when it doesn’t agree much with Mahayana? Are there at least two versions of Siddartha? More than one version of his revelations?
Hokkien Buddhists graft all sorts of rituals and gods into their Chinese religion. So do Tibetans, who received the religion after conquering China with the Mongols. They colour their Buddhas dark blue for their good luck and protection car stickers. So many people claim to be the next Buddha until they are caught in a scandal or fade into obscurity. It is whatever you want it to be as long as you don’t take anything to final conclusions. Just focus on getting a better karma score before your last breath, no matter how loose the definition.
Why not go to family court and see if you want to know what the nature of cognition is? There is so much that happens there, everyone there wants the truth.


text:
Overcoming sensual craving for food
I've become interested in Buddhism a couple of months ago, and I try to meditate daily, which had very positive effects on my anxiety and overall feeling so far.
I am prone to feeling overwhelming cravings for unhealthy, sugary food. Although the intensity of the cravings has been reduced since I started meditating, it is still a significant problem. I wonder if there is any specific practice which could help with that. I tried reading texts about the elimination of sensual cravings, but unfortunately they all focused primarily on sexual desire and not on craving for food.
If someone could enlighten me on the topic, I would be very thankful. :)

What goes through your mind & how do you feel after you "binged"? Absolutes à la "Overcoming all food cravings" might be a bit unrealistic at the beginning stage.

Sexual desire and the craving for food both fall under the umbrella domain of sensual desire, which can be countered with various different strategies as highlighted in MN 20

Sexual desire and the craving for food both fall under the umbrella domain of sensual desire, which can be countered with the strategy highlighted in MN 19, namely, "This leads to my own affliction/harm".

Glad to hear that meditation had good results on your anxiety. Keep up the good work!
As already mentioned, there are various suttas that deal with sensual cravings such as  MN 19 & MN 20.
You can periodically reflect on the advantages & disadvantages of your food craving (both short & long term). Vividly imagine the costs of it.
Then, you also better be prepared that cravings might still arise. When they arise I have a couple of steps that might help you:

Recognize the urge/thought & perhaps spot the location in your body. If you're not aware of the urge, you're much more likely to give in.
Realize that it's not a life necessity to give in immediately (this gives you a break from the thought-action fusion)
Keep in mind that you have a choice: To act upon your urge or to refrain. Here it is important that eating sometimes chocolate etc. might not be in conflict with your long-term goals & as humans we often also have short-term goals/desires that want to be met. Be specific with your goals & guard yourself against rationalizations
If you decided to refrain, counter any "positives for giving in"/"negatives for not giving in" & keep in mind of your goal. This step is particularly important so that you balance your thoughts so that they have a lesser hold on your decision-making.
Don't spend too much times with the 4. point and accept that urges will reside for a while in the mind, and will fade if you allow them to be there without resistance or clinging. In a word "let them be".

Another strategy might be "seclusion" perhaps -- deciding to not have the object of craving nearby can help to develop a new habit.
That might be as simple as, "stop buying it, so you don't have it in the house with you".
It's easier to be moral briefly ("I won't buy that because it's not good") when you're at the shop once a week, than it is to keep it nearby and overcome cravings throughout the week including during weaker moments.

While this is a good start, it's not an elegant solution in my opinion. An addict for example must necessarily learn to deal with internal & external triggers. So one better expose oneself with a method such as "challenging, but not overwhelming", if feasible. It would be preferable that we learn,philosophically to the core you could say, that Life is sometimes uncomfortable; that it's not life necessary to give in; and lastly: That one can bear discomfort, and that it's worth bearing because of one's goals and ideals.

For me it was the only feasible way to quit cigarettes, for example. Having quit for a while, reprogrammed, learned a new habit, then I can afford to be exposed without being "overwhelmed" by craving. I've also used that method to change my daily/weekly food diet. While the OP might "overwhelmed" by craving, if that's e.g. only for 5 minutes at a time, or only after midnight, then having to go to the shop instead of going to the fridge is like a safety valve. You still have to decide, consciously, but you couldn't be defeated by a craving which is only momentary.

Yes, your approach is still helpful, but often people resort to other unhealthy escapes (which is all too human of course), which have other unhealthy consequences, and all too often the "alternative behaviour" cannot always be practised (if it's healthy let's say). And as I mentioned, cravings can arise even if there is no external visible trigger. But surely your approach might also work and I liked your last sentence in particular. In the end it must help, and that's for everyone different. Best wishes.

Mindfulness in eating takes several forms. For example there is the meal chant:

Wisely reflecting, I use this food not for fun, not for pleasure, not for fattening, not for beautification, but only for the maintenance and nourishment of this body, for keeping it healthy, for helping with the Spiritual Life;
  Thinking thus, I will allay hunger without overeating, so that I may continue to live blamelessly and at ease.

And there is eating at the right time:

AN10.99:18.2: They eat in one part of the day, abstaining from eating at night and food at the wrong time.

And there is non-identification with food:

MN62:11.8: This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Studying the suttas, one learns about the nature of craving and its escape. These lessons are universal. Indeed, we find that:

SN42.11:2.11: ... desire is the root of suffering.

For me, I find it very helpful to say that I have a craving, (acknowledging that it is present), that usually starts an irregular breathing pattern, then starts an anxiety and change of heart rate, I acknowledge that it to is present, then restart my normal breathing patterns, regulate my heart rate back down and steady then, (say out loud or in thought loudly), this to shall pass, I will overcome this craving!! Doing this can help you become aware of your true intention when making decisions,(why and for whom am I making this a point for me?)
Try this: Ask yourself everyday all day long, and when not asking yourself this question, be Thankful for everything!!!!!!
What is it I am basing my decisions and actions on.?
Me.   Or.      We. ( Understand that We can be you and the collective of any and all things)
Don't forget to be Thankful that your hand can reach out from your mind and touch everything around you. It helps to actually allow yourself to hear you say it as much as possible!!!!!
Hope this helps!!!!!
(Healing Drum)
P.S. don't forget URok!!!!

My dear friend.
Aware your  food craving...this is fantastic  for knowing  craving.
You can go deep  and deep.
How to arise food craving.
For example
Thoughts  is responsible  for lust craving.
Thoughts  condition lust craving.
Thought depends memory
Knowing  all structure  ..
This is awareness.

I had a monster midnight chicken curry craving season in 2016. I was beginning to understand the secrets of the world back then. I became fat and thought my liver will never help me lose weight.
In late 2019, I lost weight after I discovered thst you can make cheap tomato soup out of spaghetti sauce with a tin of hot water. I now can wear a men’s 32.


text:
how do we know about parts of Buddha's life where he was clearly alone?
for example, when he was being tempted by Mara, he said "the Earth bears witness." how do we know this? he was clearly alone, right? no one was there witnessing this to write about it. did Buddha just tell it to everyone later? not just that, there are so many instances in his story where he was clearly alone. no one else could've known about those moments to write about them.

From where does good householder "clearly know" that he was alone?

Some of it is in suttas, see for example Buddha meditation under the bodhi tree
The detail you mentioned come from the introduction to Jataka -- Where is the description of the vow and the Bodhi tree?
Parts of the Jataka might be described here as "a charming story" -- see also Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories?
See also Why did the Buddha touch the earth at his enlightenment? -- people understand that as instructive.

The Buddha is capable of showing images and movies from his mind (like holographic projection) in his sermons to the audiences. One Sutra mentioned, the Buddha shows the scenes of the many worlds (the cosmos) to Ananda. From my reading I've come across the Buddha recounting his enlightenment to the disciples in the Mahisasaka-vinaya - brought back by Faxian (400CE) from Ceylon (Sri Lanka) to China but this vinaya doesn't exist in the Pali "Tipitaka". It infers all other 5 versions of original and earliest vinayas in the Chinese Tripitaka should also recount this event.
Second, the celestial beings are all-knowing, they also bear witnesses to all events that are missing of human observation.
Third, the accomplished disciples - arhats - they could retrieve past events and look into the future. Also they have direct channel to communicate with the celestial beings.
In the ultimate, time and space is not linear.
However, if we human must defile anything that we don't master or understand until it's falsified or mythologized, then nirvana or the perfection of wisdom must be violated too. Since, which human being has mastered or understood it?
A sparrow can never know how humans walking on two legs, a human also can never do flying like a sparrow either. What one doesn't know doesn't endorse the right to refute what it is.

We don't know this and cannot. All we can do is hope to gain enough wisdom to realise why this story is so carefully preserved.
Buddha is said to have turned Mara's dancing girls, sent to tempt him under the Bodhi tree, into cherry-blossom. Is this a true story? If it's meaning is studied it becomes an immensely valuable teaching story and method for dealing with Mara, so who cares? Did Jesus really say, 'Get thee behind me Satan'?
The message is that we can defeat Mara with ease if we are Awake, and it would not mean denying the beauty of the temptation.
A great proportion of the literature of the Perennial tradition is attributed to writers who are not the author and there is a reason for this, one of which would sometimes be to convey the idea that it doesn't matter who wrote it. What matters is the words.
Whether we read the Buddhist literature as mythology and metaphor or as historical and scientific fact doesn't really matter. What matters is its usefulness. If we are a practitioner the truth will out.

Buddha mentioned his life story to monks as he went and when it was relevant to particular occasions. You find these discussions in throughout Suttas. Please read the Sutta to clear your doubts.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html

We cannot know the Buddha was being tempted by Mara & he said "the Earth bears witness". We cannot know whether or not the Buddha reported this to his disciples.
The Refuge in the Dhamma is as follows:

Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhīti
Well taught is the Buddha´s Dhamma, visible here and now, immediately
  effective, inviting inspection, leading onwards, to be experiened
  directly by the wise.

The many stories & teachings that fall outside of the above definition are not the essential or true Dhamma.

Answers vs Advice

"earth bears witness" means a lot of hidden meaning in front of temptive Mara( a recollection of Ignorance instincts). To understand this,  you must be adult enough &  spiritual too.
2 meanings out of them are stated here::
1.) Sexy girls couldn't  touch him,  sexy boys couldn't  touch him,  sexy others couldn't  touch him because Soil nearby buddha is clear of any footprints, otherwise Mara could've  quoted it.
2.) This earth also refers to the base point where karmic dhamma activity occurs at atomic scale. That base point is clean means that  buddha is completely free from any 'Sankharas' & they have not arisen & there is not even a trace of any cause&conditions that may lead to arising of sankharas.
This was a statement for an ignorant dweller.
Now,  tell me what type of witness would be required in any of the above case.  In 1st case,  Mara is strong enough to argue in front of buddha anywhere,  anytime.  In 2nd case also,  devas/bak-brahmaas would be enough to point that out.


text:
Do you know of sutta references to maraṇa-s-sati  (remembering death) not already on this list?
(article link contains all sutta reference passages collected so far)
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2020/01/all-ebt-sutta-references-to-marana-s.html
excerpt:

All EBT sutta references to maraṇa-s-sati , death-remembering
AN 6.19 and AN 6.20 are really the only two suttas that fully explain the practice of maraṇa-s-sati, and use that name maraṇa-s-sati  explicitly. The practice itself though, is a frequent theme in the suttas, but it's not easy to identify and track them all since they're referred to tangentially or indirectly, often not having the word marana anywhere in there at all in those passages.

So here I set out to gather all of those references. Help me complete the collection.
maraṇa-s-sati  = death-remembering
‘appamattā viharissāma, tikkhaṃ maraṇassatiṃ bhāvessāma āsavānaṃ khayāyā’ti. (AN 6.19)

Never forget, remembering to assiduously practice ☸Dharma for arahantship every moment, giving it everything you got, for the time it takes for one breath, or the time it takes to eat one mouthful of food. If you get sidetracked or forget to be assiduous (ap-pamāda), the Buddha calls that negligence (pamāda). (AN 6.19).

Remembering, not forgetting that fatal accidents can strike at any moment, so practice the ☸Dharma assiduously every moment. Doing this correctly, will activate the 7sb☀ sequence producing virtuous-mirth (mudita/pamojja) and rapture (pīti). (AN 6.20).

A search for bloated corpses (as used in the effort to preserve) reveals:

SN46.61:1.1: “Mendicants, when the perception of a bloated corpse is developed and cultivated it’s very fruitful and beneficial. …”
AN10.238:1.3: The perceptions of impermanence, not-self, death, repulsiveness of food, dissatisfaction with the whole world, a skeleton, a worm-infested corpse, a livid corpse, a split open corpse, and a bloated corpse.
AN10.57:1.3: The perceptions of impermanence, not-self, death, repulsiveness of food, dissatisfaction with the whole world, a skeleton, a worm-infested corpse, a livid corpse, a split open corpse, and a bloated corpse.
AN4.14:4.2: It’s when a mendicant preserves a meditation subject that’s a fine foundation of immersion: the perception of a skeleton, a worm-infested corpse, a livid corpse, a split open corpse, or a bloated corpse.
AN1.475-484:1.1: They develop the perception of impermanence … the perception of not-self … the perception of death … the perception of the repulsiveness of food … the perception of dissatisfaction with the whole world … the perception of a skeleton … the perception of the worm-infested corpse … the perception of the livid corpse … the perception of the split open corpse … the perception of the bloated corpse …
DN33:1.11.91: It’s when a mendicant preserves a meditation subject that’s a fine foundation of immersion: the perception of a skeleton, a worm-infested corpse, a livid corpse, a split open corpse, or a bloated corpse.

The corpse decay practices, are not really marana-sati, as defined in AN 6.19 and 6.20. Maranasati is  about remembering that death can strike any moment, and one has to practice assiduously every moment for arahantship. Corpse contemplation certainly could be used to induce maranasati, but its main function is more to deepen insight into impermanence and not self (for how can a self be, if a corpse is dead and impermanent).  But thank you for sharing those refs and contributing.


text:
Giving not outside in relation to merits, how should this proper perceived?

"Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower. Which five?...He/she has conviction; is virtuous; is not eager for protective charms & ceremonies; trusts kamma, not protective charms & ceremonies; does not search for recipients of his/her offerings outside [of the Sangha], and gives offerings here first. Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower." An05.175

What does one think is meant here by gifts and by outside, the Sangha?
How would a wise understand it correct in line with the Dhamma?
(not sure if MN 142 Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasuttaṃ might help for investigation the question on topic without going astray)
(Note that this has not been given for trade, exchance, stacks and stucks but for exit from this wheel)

I think this is merely a reference to a typical aspect of religious life. Whenever we have a body of people who dedicate their lives to religious pursuits — be they clergymen or monastics — those people have no means of support other than the generosity of lay people. This binds the lay followers and the devotees together: the lay followers put their hopes for salvation on the full-time adherents; the full-time-adherents get their subsistence from the labor of lay followers. Someone who gives donations to a different group is breaking that bond; that has an impact both on the community as a whole and on his own progress on the path.
Imagine someone who attends a Christian congregation, but gives a good part of his donations to a Hindu temple down the road. There are reasons one might do that, but it inevitably calls into question his commitment to the Christian congregation and Christian teachings as a whole. Is he trying to hedge his bets, in case the Hindus are 'right'? Is his boss Hindu, and he is trying to curry favor? Hmph.
It's often a good idea when faced with lists like this to focus less on the individual items and more on the common theme. The goal here is to convince lay followers to show a commitment equivalent to that of monastics, within their means. They shouldn't split their attention between this and that; sometimes being committed to the sangha and sometimes being committed to other groups or principles. If you think about it, it is difficult to violate any one of these precepts without simultaneously violating the others, and that is the essential concern.

re-, better just legion, boundage, yes. It's like marriage. Thoghtful answer, good householder. Just one thing: the goal isn't to maintain supply, but to bind them toward the same path, if not now and in this existance, then to lay out the conditions, Upanissaya. What ever is feed, inward, outward, that grows for one, that makes Upanissaya. Who cares much about Fremdgeher. All here not a matter of generosity but already Sila within a relation.

I dislike being called a 'householder'; please avoid that in the future. Archaic term...

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The word in question is dakkhiṇeyya.
Bhikkhu Sujato's translation

They seek outside of the Buddhist community for those worthy of religious donations.
  ito ca bahiddhā dakkhiṇeyyaṃ gavesati;

Curiously the Pali text doesn't say "outside the Sangha" or "outside of the Buddhist community" -- it just says bahiddhā ("outside").

It's not curious to gain no insight and inside if seeking for answers outside. Or does Nyom think that Sujato and his Kibbutz is any but inside?


text:
Soul that transmigrates?
In Timsa Sutta Buddha says:
"What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, or the water in the four great oceans?"
Furthermore he also says:
"The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off... when, being rams, you had your ram-heads cut off... when, being goats, you had your goat-heads cut off... when, being deer, you had your deer-heads cut off... when, being chickens, you had your chicken-heads cut off... when, being pigs, you had your pig-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans."
Doesn't this mean that there is a soul in Buddhism?

A literal reading of this translation brings the conclusion there is the same person transmigrating or reincarnating from life to life. Therefore, there will obviously be the impression of a permanent substance, such as a "soul", reincarnating from life to life. The Neo-Buddhists can argue until they are blue in the face that what transmigrates is a "re-linking consciousness" (which the Buddha did not teach) but, whatever it is called, it retains the characteristics of a soul (which is probably why Buddhism became extinct in India, given the common person could not distinguish between Neo-Buddhism & Hinduism).

Personally, I regard Chapter 15 of the SN to be either "fake dhamma" or, otherwise, mostly metaphorical language. For example:

Literally, the word "saṃsāro" does not mean "transmigration". It merely means "continuance". SN 22.99 is a sutta using similar language to SN 15.13 yet describes samsaro as the ignorant mind, similar to a dog tied to a post, continually circling around & attaching to the same aggregates as "self".
Literally, the word "satta" ("beings") does not refer to "sentient beings" but merely refers to a "self-view" produced by ignorance & craving (refer to SN 23.2 & SN 5.10, which define what a "satta" or "being" is). Therefore, what is continuing from an inconceivable beginning might be the production of self-views.
Metaphorically, SN 47.20 uses the metaphor of a "head chopped off" for a loss of mindfulness. Therefore, when SN 15.13 refers to continually being beheaded, this may refer to continually lacking mindfulness.
Metaphorically, suttas such as Lokapala Sutta refer to goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs and jackals as representing sexual promiscuity (or unwholesome non-humane behaviours).
Literally, similar to the Lokapala Sutta, SN 15.13 thus continues by referring to thieves, highway thieves, adulterers, which are unwholesome behaviours bringing punishment and even execution by the king. There are many suttas referring to the king cutting off the head of thieves, murderers & adulterers.

Thank you for this answer. 22.99 is similar.

I read it again. Your answer seems to be true. Also I would like to add another point that, with every sexual thoughts and sexual misconducts there is a shift in human consciousness. Buddha's root knowledge depend upon controlling the lust and refraining self from sexual desire. Story of Mara is one example how he fought lust during the time of enlightenment. The beheading of consciousness, dogs or sheeps as metaphor for sexual misconduct and talking about adultery.. this all very much explains the moral situation we face. It's true once we are morally impure we wander on. That's the lesson.

Samdhavata-Samsarata (translated above as "wander and transmigrate") literally means "continuously run or flow". It evokes an image of water in a river, carrying itself forward but never running out.
This is a reference to the stream of life in nature. In context of this sutta I would translate it as "reproduction". Generations of sentient beings derive their existence from previous generations and this cyclic process carries itself forward.
Children are born from parents, new plants grow from seeds of previous plants, and new ideas derive from old ideas. Action fruits as results. Old begets new. Here's your "transmigration".
You may call it "soul" but what it is, is information and transformation.
For further study, please read The Rice Seedling Sutra.

I have mistaken this concept. There is no soul. This term soul is misinterpretation of term "atta". Atta is very similar to soul, however it also does not exist if we carefully examine it through insight. "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta." All doings, phenomenon, existence is devoid of permanent essence. It looks like the term 'atman' also did not exist during the time of Buddha. Atta is similar but it is denoted for the core part of both living and non living entity. But this also do not exist if we look carefully.

User17389,  by soul you mean: the spiritual part of a person,  believed to exist after death.  You need to explain more in this matter otherwise,
don't  bluntly use word soul for citta in buddhism.
In buddhism,  it's  the subconscious state (citta)  that travels which is also impermanence.  Unlike soul,  it's  parent is noone rather cause&conditions that gives rise to citta are due to Ignorance whereas in case of soul(hindu word)  it's  parent is God who takes birth in human form too and produce lots of kids through  sexual intercourse.
If so called soul exists,  it's  already present everywhere, how can it be different in different person OR how can it be condensed inside one,  2, 3...  bodies & not in nearby space?
Now,  if somehow you try to prove that soul and citta are same then Whether it's  soul or citta ,only ignorance goes for rebirth which is not a Noble way not a ,'bhagwat' - this word is specifically for Samyak Sam buddha,  not for someone going through sexual intercource to produce kids.
Don't  mess word soul with citta of buddhism and even soul word is contradictory  in itself.

Pali uses word 'bojjhanga' for awakening. We Nepali still use that word, little change, 'biujhine' for awakening. Buddha never said 'no self,' but he said 'not self' or 'not yours' as in all things are not self or all things are not yours. All things are anatta(not yours). Because you are atta. Atta is soul. Soul is you. Bodhi means Buddhi means you have faculty to think. Three marks of existence: Annica, Dukkha and Anatta. Means, there is Impermanence in the world, there is suffering in the world and there are things not yours in this world.

My last comment:: @user17389 because you are atta. Tell me when, where(with reference) did buddha said this, otherwise you are wasting my time now. 'not self' and 'not yours' are different,  'self' is ' seemingly I' here.you got english misunderstanding.

I have mistaken. There is no atta.

Your 1st pair of shoes were 'your shoes'
Your 2nd pair of shoes were 'your shoes'
Your 3rd pair of shoes were 'your shoes'
Neither the 1st, 2nd nor the 3rd pair were the same pair of shoes but all three were in a qualified sense 'your shoes'.
So it is with that which is called mind or consciousness, which by day and night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
So it is with bodies which are worn out..
All of the above are grasped with wrong view as personal, self referrable or belonging to a self for this or that person  as long as one is attached to a doctrine of self.
There are many ways of explaining this and making it apparent ie;
Consider how that which is called 'experience of a being', while alive, constantly changes but doesn't really ever cease; as in that which is called 'experienced reality of a being' does not alternate between 'reality' and 'unreality' but rather appears to be apparently changing 'reality'; it is the same reality in a qualified sense but is not the same, just like the shoes are 'your shoes' in a qualified sense but aren't really the same, experience arises as one thing and ceases as another experience.
Now as one delineates classes of experience and requisite conditions according to demonstrable basis one can delineate the various elements and describe their function and characteristics. In this way one should delineate structures, consciousness, contact etc