text:
Body state after enlightenment
I've heard (not from Buddhist texts) that after enlightenment the investment in the body dwindles becomes delicate and less resistant to disease ,and that the body needs to be prepared first.So what Buddha had went through before Nirvana was important.Or what the yogis do in kryia yoga .
Examples of Ranamnakrishna and Maharishi Raman dying of cancer .
There is even claim that some might die right after nirvana.
Another claim is that there is no longer unconscious sleep,One is always awake /sleeps less .
Example of krishnamurti not sleeping well and having migraines.
If there is any such thing what do Buddhist texts say about the state of the body after nirvana ?

Perhaps considering The Buddha's  suggestion of The Middle Way cf extreme asceticism etc could be included in the context of this question; also, if could list the claims, since eg some instances might be more coincidental than causative etc, eg, The Buddha instructed for many years

The Buddha lived till the age of 80, which is 45 years after his enlightenment, according to tradition.
Based on the Pali Canon, he seemed to have lived a mostly healthy life and only suffered from dysentery a short while before his death.
From the essay "Footprints in the dust: Buddha’s travels in India" by Ven. S. Dhammika:

In the famous Mahaparinibbana Sutta we know that he went from Rajagaha
to Kusinara via Nalanda, Patna and Vesali, a total distance of about
300 kilometres.

I think to travel 300 km on foot, he must have been quite healthy.
Similarly, his disciples like Ven. Sariputta and Ven. Moggallana were arahats and also seemed to have lived generally healthy lives.
As far as I know, enlightenment does not have a detrimental effect on the body. Of course, they are no longer attached to their bodies, so they may not lovingly take care of their body, looks and health in the same way non-enlightened folk would. They would follow the Middle Way in taking care of their health i.e. neither extreme asceticism, nor indulgence and vanity.
Ageing, disease and death affects all sentient beings, regardless of whether they are enlightened or not. All conditioned things are impermanent (sabbe sankhara anicca).

As far as EBT (early buddhist texts) go, I'm pretty sure there's nothing to support any of your ideas on what happens to the body of any arahant after nirvana.
There is this SN 47.9  Gilāna sutta, where the
buddha is close to death but prolongs life, and limits body pain with animitta samadhi, but not all arahants could do that. Otherwise his arahant body after nirvana (while alive) seems to be just as frail as any normal human:

I’m now old, elderly and senior. I’m advanced in years and have
reached the final stage of life. Āsītiko me vayo vattati. I’m
currently eighty years old. Seyyathāpi, ānanda, jajjarasakaṭaṃ
veḷamissakena yāpeti; Just as a decrepit cart keeps going by relying
on straps, evameva kho, ānanda, veḷamissakena maññe tathāgatassa kāyo
yāpeti. in the same way, the Realized One’s body keeps going by
relying on straps, or so you’d think.

And there are the suttas where the Buddha and Moggallana say had they chosen to, they could have extended their lifespan for the remainder of the aeon. But this has to do more with supernormal powers, which arahants may or may not have developed, it doesn't have to do with what happens to everyones' body after nirvana realization. The EBT's AFAIK don't explain how that ability of remaining for an aeon works. Theravada commentary (which I disagree with) says that 'aeon' is to be taken figuratively as being able to live out a natural human lifespan (100 years or so). I suspect what that power to live out for a remainder of an aeon really means, is living out the aeon in a ghost state in a mind made body (for reference, a lower brahma realm has  a lifespan of one aeon). There are accounts of taoist masters doing something similar, not yet taking rebirth in their next form, but hanging around in some kind of intermediate state with ability to communicate with their disciples in the human realm.
Regarding the ability to sleep less, nor not sleeping at all and remaining conscious all the time, the EBT's do mention some things regarding that, but nothing specific only for an arahant.

Can you provide a link to SN 47.9 Gilāna sutta .Cause I couldn't find it .

http://lucid24.org/sn/sn47/sn47-v01/index.html#s9  Yasmiṃ, ānanda, samaye tathāgato sabbanimittānaṃ amanasikārā ekaccānaṃ vedanānaṃ nirodhā animittaṃ cetosamādhiṃ upasampajja viharati, phāsutaro, ānanda, tasmiṃ samaye tathāgatassa kāyo hoti.
Sometimes the Realized One, not focusing on any signs, and with the cessation of certain feelings, enters and remains in the signless undistractible-lucidity of the heart. Only then does the Realized One’s body become more comfortable.

What I understood is that sometimes the realized ones body become more comfortable by observing certain feelings of the body .So does this mean that the default is relying on straps but just sometimes the body is comfortable ?..

the straps were a simile, not a real strap .The default is the body gets old, aged, broken, and hurts most of the time. The strap was a simile for occasionally the Buddha would use animitta samadhi to decrease some of the physical pain.

Ultimately everyone has to die due to ageing and/or diseases. The body disintegrates. There is no alternative whether enlightenment or not. Why is this so ? Because body is conditional and has a origin.
Body is not me , mine or myself.

One bears it like a cow wearing skin which where patched on again after it had been seperated from the body. That is what the Buddha told in regard of all aggregates, good householder, and they will go along with their nature.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, holding on bodies, or other world-binding trades but for and escape]

Care to provide a reference ?.


text:
Need help with finding a specific Sutta
I'm looking for a sutta wherein the Buddha explains how a person who only for a moment cultivates loving-kindness or mindfulness has not wasted his or her spiritual life.
What sutta is that?
Thank you for your time.

Here are some finger-snapping and udder-pulling moments of love and mindfulness:

AN1.53:1.1: “If, mendicants, a mendicant cultivates a mind of love even as long as a finger snap,

AN1.54:1.1: “If, mendicants, a mendicant develops a mind of love even as long as a finger snap,

AN1.55:1.1: “If, mendicants, a mendicant focuses on a mind of love even as long as a finger snap,

AN9.20:9.1: It would be more fruitful develop the perception of impermanence—even for as long as a finger snap—than to do all of these things, including developing a heart of love for as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder.”

AN9.20:8.9: It would be more fruitful to develop a heart of love—even just as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder—than to undertake the training rules.

SN20.4:1.2: “Mendicants, suppose one person was to give a gift of a hundred pots of rice in the morning, at midday, and in the evening. And someone else was to develop a heart of love, even just as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder. The latter would be more fruitful.

AN1.405:1.1: principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.405:1.1: principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.406:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that bad, unskillful qualities don’t arise, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.407:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that bad, unskillful qualities that have arisen are given up, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.408:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that skillful qualities that have not arisen do arise, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.409:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that skillful qualities that have arisen remain, are not lost, but increase, mature, and are fulfilled by development, even for the time of a finger snap …

There may be more...

Perhaps the Velāma Sutta (AN 9.20) which ends:

It would be more fruitful to undertake the training rules—not to kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or take alcoholic drinks that cause negligence—than to go for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha with a confident heart.
It would be more fruitful to develop a heart of love—even just as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder—than to undertake the training rules.
It would be more fruitful develop the perception of impermanence—even for as long as a finger snap—than to do all of these things, including developing a heart of love for as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder.”

That includes the "even if only for a moment" idea, although not the "has not wasted his or her spiritual life".
There's also AN 1.53 and AN 1.54 which is a more exact match:

“If, mendicants, a mendicant cultivates a mind of love even as long as a finger snap, they’re called a mendicant who does not lack absorption, who follows the Teacher’s instructions, who responds to advice, and who does not eat the country’s alms in vain. How much more so those who make much of it!”

“If, mendicants, a mendicant develops a mind of love even as long as a finger snap, they’re called a mendicant who does not lack absorption, who follows the Teacher’s instructions, who responds to advice, and who does not eat the country’s alms in vain. How much more so those who make much of it!”

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why are we "trapped" in cyclic rebirth?
If we are trapped in Cyclic Rebirth, we are then being held against our will..
If we are being held against our will, who or what has set this trap?
If I escape, where am I escaping to?
As with all of my questions, I am seeking a person who has experienced and truly knows the answer. Hopefully, and with respect I am not seeking mere recital of texts ☺

Interestingly stated question, perhaps sort of a rather large 'If': Maybe this question is more from an existential  viewpoint of religions other than Buddhism, since a basic observation re Buddhism is the possiblity of exiting the Cyclic situation; also, if it's part of existence, then perhaps  cf breathing etc: it's simply part of existing, rather than some sort of trappyess

I like that word "trappyness"  so, my viewpoint is one relating to ultimate truth of existence. I sense we are all from a source and that perhaps our suffering is already known and accepted before re/birth. Could our source be playful, wise and knowing  of suffering. Because to know happiness, one must know suffering. Much like - to know forgiveness, one must experience enemies?

Thank you for further clarifying your excellent question! :)

Who is that "we" which is trapped?
It seems to me that these questions are based on the assumption of an "I" who can be found separated from the conditions that made the perception of "I" or the constituents of beings possible. There seems to be a differenciation between the "we" and the "trap".
If the conditions are not there, no phenomena [whose arising and persistence depends on those conditions] will come to be.
As the Buddha said, there's a middle way between the extremes of existence and non-existence, namely, dependent origination.
SN 12.15

“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence
and non-existence.
But when you truly see the origin of the world with right
understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding
the world. And when you truly see the cessation of the world with
right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding
the world.
The world is for the most part shackled to attraction, grasping, and
insisting.
But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation,
insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp,
and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or
uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what
ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is
independent of others.
This is how right view is defined.
‘All exists’: this is one extreme.
‘All doesn’t exist’: this is the second extreme.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle
way:
‘Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for
consciousness. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices
cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. … That is how this
entire mass of suffering ceases.’”

EDIT: I think a big part of this issue arises from confusion in the use of language. From reading the question, it seems to me that two problems are present: assigning human-like features to processes and entities which are not human (for instance, when stating that "truth is playful"); and taking metaphors as explanations or descriptions of reality and its parts and processes (for instance, when stating that "suffering is a trap", maybe suggesting that "we" are inside something, which can be a reification
of the perception of identity).
I'd suggest to keep analysing your own question, trying to clarify to yourself the words you use and the implications underlying such meanings. Clarity of the use of language can dissolve problems, a lot of times.
Kind regards!

Thank you for your insight

nice helpful point re language usage variations within the same language, and there could be further amplifications of such effects from translation etc

Good householder, also here, wanted to become here, take birth and hold on existance. Neither did one really call him, and even if, it would be finally his decision, nor was and is/could he be forced. So nobody else in charge of being bound then oneself at first place.
Good householder will maintain himself here as long there are left merits to do so and as long he finds certain happiness. When those things run out, he breaks appart, then he will arise elsewhere, say on youtube... an animal womb, leaving with a low mindstate...
As for "Why bound":

From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabrications, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released. Anamatagga-samyutta — The unimaginable beginnings of samsara

And the only way out is just this Noble Path of practice.
If one escapes from the wheel of bound, the wheel of suffering, then such question does no more arise, having reached Unbound, [beyond measure and compare.
One, if good, would only if having reached certain level of liberation recognice one who knows and sees, having realised if by himself. So good to go for training judgement, good householder. (Link no more possible to share)
Btw, good householder, using "we" would be in most cases wrong speech, for he would hardly be able to know even himself. And who would "we" be? Yours?
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trafes, but a gift for release from this wheel, for whom ever able to receive]

Interesting, and thank you for your input. There are still many unanswered questions, for example "aris[ing] elsewhere" - where is this place and why is it separate? I sense that suffering is just one aspect of happiness and that there is no 'escape' because I sense we are not trapped

As with all of my questions, I am seeking a person who has experienced and truly knows the answer. Hopefully, and with respect I am not seeking mere recital of texts ☺

I prefer people speaking from experience. It’s one thing to learn from an ancient text, and completely different to learn from another who has come to experience the truth the text was attempting to express.

If we are trapped in Cyclic Rebirth

Edit: So I think I should preface this with my belief that this teaching has become conflated over time and has become more mystical. I think the teachings of rebirth were once very grounded in personal experience, but due to translations and people not understanding the original teaching, it transformed into an expression of multiple lives. While interesting to discuss, I’m going to pass on this traditional interpretation, and explain my understanding of the concept of rebirth from personal experience alone.
First, let’s define Cyclic Rebirth from my perspective. Rebirth is a phenomena that occurs because of the transient nature of experience. Seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, and thinking are all impermanent by nature. One sensate experience only lasts for an almost imperceptibly short length of time before it is replaced by the next, or it ends entirely. These transitory experiences are the foundation in which we build up our belief systems about the physical world. For example, a gargantuan number of short “sight” experiences occur one after another and we jump to grand conclusions. Our logic tends to look something like “There is sight. I am seeing. I see outside. Outside I see a tree. A tree exists outside.” Due to our belief systems, we went from observing a simple experience to believing in the existence of yourself as a separate entity and objects in a material world.
This process of self identifying with some aspect of your experience is what I define as Rebirth. Every moment we are experiencing, we are involved in a process of self identification. Even though these experiences last for only a moment, we continually shift what we believe ourselves to be. For example, we look in the mirror and say “that is me”. Then you walk to the left, and still think it’s you. Walk to the right, and still think it’s you. All while walking your sight is changing as you see your body from different perspectives. But in reality, you are experiencing multiple sight experiences, none related or connected to one another, and are making arbitrary decisions that “this subsection of sight is me, but that subsection isn’t”. This process happens continuously when experience is present, and what you classify as yourself has to change in every separate experience. So what is effectively happening is, every time an experience you identify with ends you die, and when a new experience arises and the process of identification happens again, you are reborn. This process of rebirth does not end until you experience Nirvana for the first time and become enlightened.

we are then being held against our will.. If we are being held against our will, what or who has set this trap?

I would say you are only being held against your will if you desire to be free of this cycle. It is your own belief systems that keep this cycle going, so if you want to blame something, that’s a better target than any other. But if you don’t care about being free from suffering or understanding the true nature of the universe, it’s your will to stay as you are. So in that situation, rebirth as it occurs is in alignment with your will.
The trap wasn’t engineered or set up by anyone. The process of self identification happens naturally, and is necessary for us to learn how to navigate life as a human being. It isn’t the optimal way to live though, in my opinion. Once the process of rebirth stops, so does suffering. There is also an unending presence of peace accessible in all experience. Also, the process of identification is absolutely exhausting. It’s insane how tiring it is. Once it stopped, I was shocked I was previously unaware of the effort. It’s like a clenched fist you hold for a long time. After a while you don’t notice the feeling. But once you open your hand and relax you can feel the exhaustion.

If I escape, where am I escaping too?

You are gaining a perspective that takes no effort to maintain. It’s a way of viewing the world that is pervaded by peace and acceptance. It’s a perspective where you are no longer a small, fragile mortal, but something much more that is unaffected by the goings on in the physical world. It’s a beautiful place that I only describe in the hopes it will motivate others to experience it for themselves.
I would not use the word “escape”. It’s more like a life of complete imperviousness and an acceptance of all things. When Rebirth ends you aren’t escaping from a prison cell, you are realizing your assumptions were wrong and the prison cell door was never locked! Stay if you want. Or don’t! It’s your life to live as you please. Life in a cell is way more comfy if you break past your belief that you are trapped.

Wonderful and insightful. Thank you. I am going to ponder on your reply and will likely respond in the future with some realised thoughts. In a sense it has shone a light for me, on an aspect I didn't think about before. Do you consider yourself to be enlightened in this respect?

@Wayne Any time my friend! =] I do consider myself an Arahant. I have lived with this new perspective and wirhout suffering for over two years now. I look forward to hearing about your new insights and questions! Good luck my friend, and i pray for nothing more than your liberation. ❤

If we are being held against our will, what or who has set this trap?

The conditioned nature of, well... all things contributes to setting the trap. Conditioning is a fundamental state of the world, essentially. In conjunction, the human tendency to act on emotions also plays a role in becoming entrapped.
Together these things interact in a way that makes us suffer.
One may even speak of correlation or causation, and buddhism teaches us that the trap of suffering has an unmistakable cause, outlined above.

If I escape, where am I escaping too?

The escape would lead to renunciation of the karmic causes, replaced with increasing equanimity and stillness.

Some wonderful mind bending answers. I'm grateful to receive truths rather than recitals of text. I'm aware of the concepts of ignorance & therein lies an enigma, being that there is suffering caused by ignorance, in order to escape it there must be another place away from suffering? Escaping suffering is to indicate being trapped by suffering. I sense that we are indeed trapped but by an ultimate truth that is content with it. I sense that ultimate truth is playful & suffering is essential to its experience. If this is not true then we must be in some kind of purgatory held by another 'thing'

If ultimate truth is playful & suffering is essential to its experience, then Truth is loaded with Sin. But Truth is ever pure and sublime. The opposite. Hence the statement is false.

I've learnt many things from everyones' replies, thank you all. One aspect, which is powerful for my understanding, is that our emotions, senses and even the way in which we think and perceive are aspects of 'a' human existence. Attachment to these is a strong force in the scope of a human, but there are many opportunities to acquire release from innate and acquired karmas and sufferings. Being Human appears to be a fortunate existence, blessed with many potential opportunities

If we are being held against our will, what or who has set this trap?

We are not held against our will. We are deeply relishing the sensual pleasures. We are craving for sensual pleasures... we are ignorant.  We are fools.
From ignorance comes volitional formations , from volitional formation comes the consciousness , from consciousness comes the name and form, from name and form comes the six sense bases , from six sense bases comes the contact , from contact comes the feeling , from feeling comes comes the craving , from craving comes the clinging , from clinging comes the attachment, from attachment comes the existence , from existence comes the birth , from birth comes the ageing and death ... Thus arises the whole mass of suffering...

If I escape, where am I escaping too?

You are escaping to end of suffering, the nirvana...

If we are trapped in Cyclic Rebirth, we are then being held against our will..

If we are being held against our will, what or who has set this trap?

If I escape, where am I escaping too?

There's no such thing as being held against our will when it comes to cyclic existence in this Samsara. Every single person is both the owner and the inmate inside this prison that s/he's built for themselves. And since it was you who built your own prison, it'll be upon you and you only who will free yourself out of it.

‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do’ ~~ AN 5.57 ~~

There's a bit of folklore which claims that hunters used to create monkey traps by putting a piece of fruit inside a heavy jar with a narrow opening. A monkey would slip its hand into the jar to get the fruit, but once it had the fruit its fist would be too large to fit back out through the opening. The monkey would be unable to pull its fist out, and unwilling to let go of the fruit, so a hunter could walk up and grab the monkey without any trouble.
Taking this as a parable, we're the monkeys, and the hunters. We set the traps for ourselves by deciding that 'this' or 'that' is essential to our identified self, and then we grasp onto it and get dragged along trying to maintain that grasp.
If the monkey lets go of the fruit, it doesn't 'go' or 'escape to' anywhere; it is exactly where it was before. The difference is that it isn't going to get dragged off by the hunter. It's a free monkey, not a monkey in a cage. Even if that cage is something the monkey built for itself (because the monkey in our parable is the hunter, too), that freedom means something.

I feel it is important to recognize that there is a different meaning to “trapped” than just “held against one’s will.” Samsara traps our (colloquially speaking) ignorance, the way mountains tend to trap clouds and fog. This keeps us focused on samsaric existence, so we keep returning to it.
Through our Buddhist practice (whatever variety, but especially advanced meditation) we remove the layers of ignorance, freeing ourselves from that attachment to samsaric existence. So we are not held “against” our ‘will’—our ‘will’ is completely focused on samsara (eat, fuck, sleep, shit, etc.), thus we are holding ourselves to continued existence in samsara, in conformance with our ‘will’.
So the answer to the final part of your question: “where do we escape to” is not a ‘place’ even metaphorically. Instead, it is a freedom gained from the ignorance which once caused us to be trapped—willfully—in samsara.
This answer is based on the progressive stages of meditation in which one becomes less attached as layers of ignorance—ideas that have no basis in reality—are directly seen through, as if a gossamer sheet had been pulled aside. As each layer is removed the clear light of reality (figuratively speaking) becomes a clear light leading us along our way.

I love your reply, thank you..more food for thought.

It's because of ignorance about you and the world.
For enlighten man there was no one who actually in bondage, no one striving for, no one gets released. What is got released then and keeps one bound here in samsara? The answer is ignorance. Well! It's you! It's your desire to clinging to life and not giving up.  You keeps rolling on the wheel. You are the driving force. You don't want to come to an end. That's the tragedy, if you are looking for the guilty, you need look into the mirror. There! You find one, yourself.
Enlightened ones are not different  from rest of humanity. It's that their head is different one.. Your's are the same head, but ignorantly thinks different, due to desire to life, clinging. Like belows!
Law of nature: Bring back to the original state where you were at start, unless, you die & reborn according to deeds.
Jesus: Come up what is within you. If you don't, then the same thing within destroys you. If you comes with what is within, then it will save you!
God: Errr. Thou' have forgotten thy own light. Thus thou' has to die!

OP: Why are we “trapped” in cyclic rebirth?

The short answer is ignorance.

OP: If we are being held against our will, who or what has set this trap?

The short answer is ignorance.
If you have to ask, "where does ignorance come from?", Buddhism does not answer that - please see the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow to understand why this is considered unimportant.
Former journalist Robert Wright (who wrote the book "Why Buddhism is true" and taught the Princeton University affliated Coursera course "Buddhism and Modern Psychology") argues that ignorance comes from evolution and natural selection. Evolution and natural selection is probably well explained by Prof. Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.

OP: If I escape, where am I escaping to?

Freedom from suffering and unsatisfactoriness / discontent. Please see this answer for a detailed explanation.
Let me introduce you to the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article):

In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
“consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice.
But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.
Also you can say that the monkey's suffering originated with his ignorance of the trap.
Q: Why is the monkey trapped?
A: It's because of his ignorance.
Q: Who set the trap?
A: It's true that the villagers set the trap, but if the monkey was not ignorant, he would not get trapped. Hence, the trap itself is set by ignorance. The coconut merely facilitated the trap of ignorance.
Q: Where is the monkey escaping to?
A: Freedom from suffering and unsatisfactoriness / discontent.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)

Thank you, and to everyone for the continued replies. I've learnt that there is a view which is inherently based on ignorance and it is wise to escape this view without and away from the entrapment of clinging to metaphysical beliefs..my understanding is growing

The painful perception of entrapment (ignorance) and the neurotic will to escape (craving) feed each upon the other. That closed feedback loop relentlessly keeps churning out the endless narratives that we call samsaric beings.

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


text:
Why I keep repeating the same mistakes?
I am new to Tibetan Buddhism and I am fascinated by it. One thing that bothers me in general is that I keep making the same mistakes. For example, every now and then I find myself procrastinating which has harmed me a lot. I came to know how cognitive psychology and neuroscience explain this behavior. It's the neural patterns that is hard wired in my brain because how I have been reacting to situations for a long time. Neurons that fire together wire together. But how Tibetan Buddhism addresses this issue? I heard from Khenpo Sherab Sangpo understanding a teaching intellectually and experiencing the teaching is two different things which made me think that there must be a spiritual aspect of this problem. I would really appreciate it if someone can help me see the spiritual side of this. Thanks!

On the subject of procrastination, also see How come enlightened people don't have any laziness?

Hi Anderi, Thanks a lot for the recommendation. Your answer resonates very much with my question.

In essence, this is about the self wanting control, or more precisely, the illusion of self and control. I think this is exactly what Khenpo Sherab Sangpo meant when saying that teaching and experiencing are different things: nobody can just tell you that self and the control the self wants are illusions, it's something you need to experience.
This sounds extremely esoteric, but if you think about it, it's really not. You can't really convey any human experience to anyone else who hasn't had that experience, even something extremely simple like what coffee tastes like. You can only use words to try to convey the experience, but words are limited and often have associations unrelated to the experience you're trying to convey.
The first step I would recommend you to take is to stop labeling the process as a mistake, as this gives cause to negative feelings. Try to observe the chain of mental causation that leads to procrastinating or "mistakes". Do not judge or try to analyze, just become aware of the process. After a while, you will see that there is "space" between the arising thoughts and the feelings they invoke. Again, this is something you need to learn to experience, not just be told. The first phase of meditation is, in essence, to become aware of this process and learn to observe it without judging or reacting to it from those spaces in arising thoughts. Only after you've become comfortable with this can you turn to the "why" behind this process.
Hope this helps.

Thanks for that! It makes perfect sense to me what you are saying

I my self a procrastinator that is why I came to this question while searching something in stackoverflow.
Just like @Codosaur mentioned, you have to embrace this.
I have a cluttered mind and I know that. For me I have multiple goals, but in all of them I found one goal that would certainly makes me happy.
That is, if I achieve that it would certainly make someone else happy for their rest of the life and that makes me happy. So in my cluttered mind that is the ultimate goal and I do work to achieve that. I always plan time to work for it.
I am not that much spiritual, but according to theravada buddhism(which I believe), Siddhartha Gautama(before becoming the Buddha) had a purpose, a goal for that he did lot of sacrifices. He went to lot of teachers, some of his believers left him, but had one goal. The eternal happiness.
You might have things to do that you don't like and it might be really necessary, but keep few hours a day to do what makes you happy and always plan it, no matter what other work you have. Because of that I think you would not have time to procrastinate.
I am sorry if I've gone over the topic or not covered what you asked, but this is my personal experience to stay in the track while procrastinating :)

Thanks for the answer. I can very much relate to what you have written. I have been doing things that I don't like for way too long and it has manifested physically. I am falling sick very often lately. I have attempted suicide and there are periods of severe depression that still torment me. One thing that helps me is the teachings and philosophy of Tibetan Buddhism. I have never been very religious. But I feel if there is anything spiritually closer to truth then it must be in Buddhism.

Hey friend, I really didn't understood the gravity of your problem. I am no expert on giving advice on this. I don't know what you have gone through. But may be, just may be, you feel alone rather than procrastinating.

Why I keep repeating the same mistakes?

As long as Ignorance (Avijja) is present in the mind, beings will keep wandering in Samsara, repeating the same mistakes over and over. It's due to the mind not being able to see clearly. It's like walking around in a dark room stumbling into furnitures. Once the light is turned on, one can see clearly where to walk.
Don't be too hard on yourself. It's not just you who repeats past mistakes, it's everyone who's not yet enlightened. We're all in the same boat so to say.
I think the best thing is to just keep practicing the path, do good, helps others and practice renunciation. The important thing is to set the mind in the right direction so that the (wholesome) momentum created will eventually break through to enlightenment, issuing liberation from the rounds of suffering.
Until that happens we should treat ourselves with love and kindness. It's important to be your own best friend - kind of like how you would treat a child that has made a mistake - by showing it comfort, love, compassion and acceptance.

Thanks for the answer!

Why not starting to follow the Buddha, starting to take his medicine as told, for placebos are a lot around? Maybe an access to the path of healing chronical dis-ease: The Healing Power of the Precepts
Liberation can not be gained by meditation without having got the good Dhamma, unmodified, and the work on the base, to be able to hear it, starts, once faith, with virtue and the rest comes by it's cause.
Not much glory in a wavin' flag...
[Note tgat this isn't given for stacks, exchange, keep on repeating and otger world-binding trades, but for release]

Thank you very much Samana!


text:
Seafood - End and The Alternative Karma Consequences
Assume a scenario that a seafood chef that inherited from the parent's seafood restaurant business and used to kill seafood alive before have a chance to study Buddhism. When the chef understood the basic and respect the basic perspective of Buddhism then he tried hard and changed his job/business entirely to a job that not required to kill animal/seafood alive.
He is also doing very well in the 5 basic lay Buddhist precepts and has changed entirely the mindset and behavior after studying Buddhism.
What would happen to animal/seafood that had been killed before? Does he still need go thru the Karma consequences or a least some waiver of punishment or this person is still going to hell but a better hell or how to reduce the bad karma consequences further?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts
This question is similar to the below but couldn't find the answer
What does "ending karma" mean?
Post Note: This question is more specific to the Chef and Seafood karma issue. The bad karma should go to those folks that order the Chef to kill and to consume the fresh and taste of seafood. At least to those folks that basic Buddhism theory/common sense already exposed to them. Correct me from wrong if any.
Lobster is best tasted when boiled alive and also it is also known to have the highest  consciousness level in term of vision of all being on earth
https://science.howstuffworks.com/lobster-x-ray-technology.htm

Does this answer your question? Is there a way to wipe out ones Karma?

@The White Cloud well, this ques more to the Karma issue between the Chef and the seafood :D. The bad karma should go to those folks that order the Chef to kill and to consume the fresh and taste of seafood. At least to some folks keep killing fishes, boiling alive crab and lobsters after numerous common sense explanations to them.

According to Theravada eating and killing are two different things. In the same way if you order someone to kill also a different Kamma but it is not killing.

"Monks, these four types of kamma have been directly realized, verified, & made known by me. Which four? There is kamma that is dark with dark result. There is kamma that is bright with bright result. There is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result. There is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html
Considering the above Sutta, It appears this person has done both dark and bright kamma. The only way he will be totally free from his bad Kamma is when he became an Arahant and after Parinibbana. He should at least attempt to be a Sotapanna, which will free him from rebirth in a woeful state.

The only way he will be totally free from his bad Kamma--> well, my questions is for those innocent seafood been killed and not "totally" free of bad karma. In this scenario, he was innocent and learnt in a way hard way how to removed "this" bad karma, so it  should end of this karma ? I believe not many willing to change in this scenario, i would say less than 0.1 % probability? At least not many have chance to study Buddhism.Or in another word how could a good man decent to hell?

Good householder,
Once one stopps unskillful kamma, old runs out and no new is performed. That's the way practice is leading to an aim, an end. No need to think much on past anymore, one firm resolve, after seeing the backwards, is done.
Sure things may have possibilities to rippen but woundn't be that hard to bear.
Good if reading the story of the mass-killer Angolimala and his way to Arahat-hood.
Angulimala: A Murderer's Road to Sainthood

"Abandon what is unskillful. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.'

May all soon go after right effort and stopp soon, for the happiness of themselves and many.
[Note that this gift isn't given for stacks, exchange, or other world-binding trades, but for release from this wheel]

Please see this question, this answer and this answer for details.
To summarize (from the perspective of the Five Precepts and Right Livelihood for lay people):

It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits (without the use of pesticides), because they are not sentient
It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals
It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat and sentient beings
It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you
It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (that was already dead long before you arrived at the market)
It is ok to order a meal from a restaurant, which is based on frozen meat

So for a customer who goes to a seafood restaurant - if he has to choose a living lobster, from an aquarium, to be cooked for him, then this breaks the first precept.
However, if the customer picks his meal from a menu, which is cooked from a frozen dead lobster which comes out of the freezer, then this does not break the first precept.
For the chef and owner of the seafood restaurant however, this breaks Right Livelihood, because it is a business of meat (maṃsavaṇijjā). Please see AN 5.177.
In addition, if lobsters are purchased and put into an aquarium for this seafood restaurant business, that's the business made upon sentient beings (sattavaṇijjā) from the same sutta. This also breaks Right Livelihood. Human trafficking (e.g. forced prostitution, slave labour) and a circus with animals are also considered businesses made upon sentient beings.

well, the Chef had learnt how to changed his mindset and job. So, it's end of killing, so does the seafood been killed bad karma shall ends here too? He is quite innocent too in this case. There is no such law or school moral teaching that killing seafood is a sin ?

He is also doing very well in the 5 basic lay Buddhist precepts and has changed entirely the mindset and behavior after studying Buddhism.

That's pretty much the key point here. While there's no surefire way to know exactly how Kamma will unfold unless one's already attained enlightenment, by cultivating the Path, there's always hope that things will turn out ok at the end:

"Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.

"There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment. ~~ AN 3.99 ~~


text:
It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits, because they are not sentient?
A teaching householder here adviced:
"It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits, because they are not sentient." ("ok" here was to be assumed of having no negative kammic consequences by killing certain beings, nor increasing wrong view on such thoughts.)
Is that right, aside of growing wouldn't work with out killing "sentient" perceived being?
Is there a mention of sentient satta (living being) different from satta?
Doesn't growing involve harming and killing?
Doesn't harvest cut of life?
Doesn't no worry in consuming increase dependency and neglecting right effort?
In the case it would be ok, why seeking to escape from the wheel of food and feeding?
Sure good if providing serious counted advices from the Sublime Buddha.
[Note that this gift isn't given for stacks, exchange, feeds, other worldbinding trades, but for a way out of this wheel.]

Let me add some qualification to that:
It's ok from the perspective of the Five Precepts and Right Livelihood for lay people, to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits (without the use of pesticides), because plants are not sentient.
The word for sentient being is satta.
From SN 5.10:

When the parts are assembled
we use the word ‘chariot’.
So too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

From my understanding, all five aggregates must be present, in order to consider it a sentient being. The five aggregates are form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations. Plants do not have consciousness and mental formations, to the best of my understanding.
From a scientific perspective, please see Taiz, L., Alkon, D. et al (2019). Plants neither possess nor require consciousness. Trends in Plant Science, 24(8), 677-687.
From SN 23.2:

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
being.'

Also here, from my understanding, a plant does not mentally cling to the five aggregates, so it's not a sentient being by this definition.
The first precept of not taking a life (of a sentient being), therefore does not apply to plants.

OP: Doesn't growing involve harming and killing? Doesn't harvest cut of life?

If pesticides are not used, then it doesn't harm sentient beings.

OP: Doesn't no worry in consuming increase dependency and neglecting right effort?

The second noble truth says that the cause of suffering is craving (tanha), not agriculture and farming. The problem is in the mind.
If we have an aversion (dosa) to agriculture and farming, then that's a negative state of mind.
For lay people, agriculture and farming without pesticides, is ok from the point of view of Right Livelihood and the Five Precepts.

Many ideas... starting with two truth, that for householder and that of monks... it's not to be expected that the Buddha but some notions of voluntary consumer protection or not being a full judgeable person... "all five aggregates must be present... is the next nice try.

Maybe laypeople should then all become something like communist stoneage farmers and farming would be the best way to avoid bad kamma... not to speak that my person thinks that Nyom never actually raised his food by himself, far away from reality.

Why lying in quoting "So too, when the aggregates are present ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use. And "the" does also not mean no while "the" wouldn't be there in Pali further.

"agriculture and farming without pesticides" obiviously Nyom had not even ever cleared a field and planted anything, never looked whats under his feeds...and in this case poor third world farmers are reall saints... fantasy-world


text:
How do we know attaining complete liberation from dukkha is possible?
How do we know attaining complete liberation from dukkha is possible?
This is a question I’ve made to myself in multiple oportunities, especially after having explained the basics of (what I understand about) the Dhamma to people not acquainted with it. When in such circumstance, I interpret that thought (the question) not necessarily as doubt in the Dhamma, but as a question of “common-sense”.
I have my own arguments that I’ve been buiding over the years about why I think attaining Nibbana is possible, but ultimately, it seems to be just a statement coming from faith and from the extension of a principle that until now has proven to be true, logical, compatible with evidence and useful (namely, the idea of the dukkha as a consequence of tanha, and that the diminishing of the presence of tanha leads to the diminishing of the presence of dukkha).
But, what does assure us that such principle could be applied until the complete eradication of dukkha?
It’s like thinking that just because the scientific method has shown itself to be useful in -apparently- understanding some aspects of reality (based on our ability to use the information gained through the application of the method to predict outcomes, to built technology to achieve some ends, and the ever growing power to keep understanding more and subtler aspects of nature), that would necessarily mean that understanding everything about reality is possible. Personally, I don't think that's the case, because I consider the possibility of reaching a point where our technology does not "expand" enough the power of our senses (i.e., we reach a practical limit of detection of events or presence of some entity or phenomenon), or that there could be stuff in Reality that do not interact with the things we can effectively interact (no matter how subtle or indirect the degree of interaction with such phenomena).
Could it be the case that there is a physical, biological or spiritual (whatever that could mean) condition that could limit the application of the Buddhist method to the very end, just like what could happen with the application of the scientific method?
Just in case, I don’t see any problem admitting to myself that faith in -what the suttas tell us about- the Buddha and in my own experience is what keeps driving me forward in this path. I think that science is not that different in this regard: through inductive reasoning, and assuming the reality of an external world, the possibility of knowledge of (at least) some parts of it, and the regularity of events, faith (or confidence in the reality of the assumptions) seems to be an useful principle when investigating nature.
So, the question can be formulated as such: what is the epistemic justification for having confidence on the possibility of complete eradication of dukkha? One can have confidence, but based, for instance, on this definition of knowledge, how can we justify the belief about the possibility of Nibbana, beyond inductive reasoning and confidence?
I think this question could be particularly beneficial for putting to test the recurring idea of both Buddhism not contradicting knowledge gained (or possible to be eventually gained) through empirical means, and Buddhism as a “science of the mind”.
I’d love to here your thoughts on this.
EDIT: There's an ongoing discussion on this same question of D&D-SuttaCentral. There are very good answers and feedback in my opinion. If you're interested, here you'll find the thread.
Kind regards!

Nice question re Knowing cf Believing/ Objective cf Subjective/ Tangible cf Intangible, and of veracity assessment; maybe could open a thread about it in this site's cht section. Thank you

Thank you for adding the excellent nice link  :)

Could it be the case that there is a physical, biological or spiritual (whatever that could mean) condition that could limit the application of the Buddhist method to the very end, just like what could happen with the application of the scientific method?

what is the epistemic justification for having confidence on the possibility of complete eradication of dukkha? One can have confidence, but based, for instance, on this definition of knowledge, how can we justify the belief about the possibility of Nibbana, beyond inductive reasoning and confidence?

While it's true that a cockroach or a snake wouldn't have any chance to penetrate the Buddhist truth due to their physical/biological/spiritual ceiling, it's also true that the human species is really a rare unique one that has the potential to make this breakthrough that no other animals can. Afterall, the power of the mind is limitless and we already get a glimpse of its vast potential through examples of megasavants and child prodigies ( see the case of the megasavant Kim Peek who was called the "living Google", then there're cases of Mozart, Terence Tao, Edmund Thomas Clint, William Cullen Bryant, etc.. ) And we've only been talking about raw innate capability. Now imagine that kind of potential could be enhanced 100x, 1000x, 10+e1000000 x-fold through the cultivation and training in Sila/Samadhi/Panna, and it won't be too far-fetched to see the possibility of going all the way to the other shore, the shore of Nibbana.
What's truly unique about Buddhism is that the Teacher never requires blind faith from his followers. Matter of fact, per MN 27, the Elephant's Footprint sutta, there's no way a noble disciple's able to have 100% absolute insight into the Dhamma and its benefits until s/he's attained final enlightenment, let alone regular worldlings! So for now, for everyone of us, followers or non-followers alike, we can only rely on sort of a provisional faith established thru sound logical induction based on many exceptional examples about the unlimited power of the mind, as I have provided

Thanks for your answer! Using the examples you gave, maybe an analogous question to the one in the OP could be: is it justifiable the belief in thinking that if some person develops his/her mind following some X method, following that method to the end will allow that person to know everythat can be know (or the Truth, with capital T) about the studied subject-matter? I know you haven't said that, but we have to keep in mind that that's how could sound to someone who hasn't heard about the Dhamma un beforehand: it promises the end of all dukkha? What could I respond in such situation?

What's truly unique about Buddhism is that the Teacher never requires blind faith from his followers. Matter of fact, per MN 27, the Elephant's Footprint sutta, there's no way a noble disciple's able to have 100% absolute insight into the Dhamma and its benefits until s/he's attained final enlightenment, let alone regular worldlings! So for now, for everyone of us, followers or non-followers, we can only rely on sort of a provisional faith established thru sound logical induction based on many exceptional examples about the unlimited power of the mind, as I have provided.

Thanks again! I agree with you. I think it would be useful if you could put that info on the post. I'd be really informative if anyone else has this question. Kind regards!

I've read this answer again, and in the last part I think it responds directly to the question, in the sutta presented (MN 27). The idea of final liberation is faith (although not 'mere' -blind- faith), theory (although not 'mere' -proliferative- theory) and partial knowledge, but and not full, direct knowledge, at least until attaining arahantship. Thanks again!

Here's the relevant part for this question: “When he knows and sees thus, his mind is liberated from the taint of sensual desire, from the taint of being, and from the taint of ignorance. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being."...

... "It is at this point that a noble disciple has come to the conclusion: ‘The Blessed One is fully enlightened, the Dhamma is well proclaimed by the Blessed One, the Sangha is practising the good way. And it is at this point, brahmin, that the simile of the elephant’s footprint has been completed in detail.”

If you don't mind asking again, and only if you agree on it, I think it would be helpful to have that extract quoted in your answer. I could edit it, but I rather you doing it, just to make sure and not assume that you agree with it. Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores, thanks for emphasizing the key point. I've edited the post to add a hyperlink to MN 27. I think that'd provide sufficient data/info for those who want to go deeper into it. Thanks.

the diminishing of the presence of tanha leads to the diminishing of the presence of dukkha... the extension of this principle... via inductive reasoning... applied all the way until complete eradication of dukkha...

Let's reason logically:
We know that everything in life of a sentient being can be subsumed under subjective experience. For a sentient being subjective experience is life, subjective experience is what matters.
All subjective experience can be broadly categorized as either "rather good" ("nice", "right", "satisfying", "positive", "pleasant", or at least acceptable/neutral) or "rather bad" ("nasty", "wrong", "annoying", "negative", "painful" etc). Therefore, for sentient beings, the character of their subjective experience is the essence of the difference between the Good and the Bad.
Now, subjective experience is made of the mind, it is a state of mind. There's no subjective experience outside of mind. And the nature of mind is representation, it is made of information that stands for something. Therefore subjective experience is a flow of interpretation generating a stream of representations. How can it be good, right, pleasant or bad, wrong, painful?
The nature of interpretation is such that it allows no contradictions. Contradicting evidence interferes with interpretation. Contradicting conclusions are a failure of interpretation. Therefore any such interpretative contradictions are harmful to the very process of interpretation which is the nature of the subjective experience.
Therefore it is the interpretative contradictions that make the difference between the good, right, pleasant, harmonious experience and the bad, wrong, painful, discordant experience.
Now, the interpretative contradictions come from a clash of two or more incompatible representations pertaining to the same subject. The way we give rise to interpretative contradictions is twofold. The coarse ones are created by getting into a circumstance of life with inherent contradiction between the elements of the situation. The subtle ones are generated directly in the mind.
According to the Buddha, the coarse ones are eradicated through the consistent practice of social and behavioral ethics - choosing one's actions such as to not create causes for discordant circumstances - while the remaining subtle ones are eradicated in meditation, by mastering one's attention and interpretation mechanisms as to prevent all kinds of inner discord.
If this were all there was to Buddhism, your doubt would be justified. Indeed, how can we know with absolute certainty that it is possible for an individual sentient being to reach a state where their mind, their process of interpretation, will no longer give rise to any and all interpretative contradictions caused by incompatible representations? Isn't the very nature of mind being a product of representations - simplified and partial by their very nature - inevitably leads to arising of conflicts? Isn't representation inherently conflict-prone?
To answer this question we need to get very clear about the mechanism behind the process of interpretation. Interpretation is an act of translating one or more signs into a category of experience this sign (or signs) signify (or represent). These links between signs and the categories, as well as the signs and the categories themselves, is something we learn from experience and absorb from our parents and other people as well as from various media.
As a sentient being accumulates these signs, categories, and interpretations - it connects them together into one semiconsistent structure called "everything I know about the world". The same totality of one sentient being's representations, with all its opinions and interpretations is what makes up its personality. Personality is the other side of the coin of "the world as we know it". The root of personality is Ego, the inferred notion that "I am the subject and my experience is consistent". In other words, Ego is this assumption that our interpretation and therefore our experience is done from a certain point of view, a certain perspective. 'I am' - thinks the ego - 'therefore my opinions and my actions have an inner logic to them'. The job of ego is endless self-rationalization in order to prove its own existence.
Because ego is all about self-rationalization, it must maintain a semblance of consistency at all cost. Guess what, this dependency on consistency is exactly what makes ego vulnerable to contradicting interpretations! So whenever we have a case of incompatible representations, it is the ego that suffers! It is the ego that is hurt by the conflict! In and off themselves the contradicting interpretations are just that, a logical contradiction. It is hurtful only because we identify with our process of interpretation, we declare ourselves to be the interpreter.
And herein lies the answer to your question. We know the complete liberation from dukkha is possible because we know it is not to be achieved by the process of asymptotic approximation of the conflictless harmonious state. (Although as shown by the Buddha, reducing the outer and inner conflict goes a long way towards achieving the clarity of mind required for the final realization.) Instead, it is achieved by removing the very foundation of conflict - the grasping at a point of view called "I". When this is done, resulting in the sentient being having no point of view, no position - the representations of the world continue clashing as before, but for the one like this there's no more conflict.
In summary, we don't need mathematical induction too see that complete liberation from dukkha is possible. What's necessary and sufficient is to understand the second noble truth: the arising of dukkha happens due to grasping, the root of grasping is the ego's demand for continuous consistency, therefore letting go of that demand, i.e. letting go of identification with one's knowledge, view, position, perspective, in short, letting go of self-identification - is the final liberation.

the Buddha: Well said, well said! That's right. You have understood it perfectly. You have understood the nature of mind. You are ready to become the next Buddha of this world.
I: Suuuure, and the elephants are actually pink!
the Buddha: That's right. Elephants are actually pink. Everything is pink when you understand the nature of mind.

When the eightfold path arise together in one moment, there is no doubt like that anymore.
You can say you are doing the best every time, but it isn't real. You just can't see the better which you can do, so you decide you are  doing the best.
As you have known from the scientist that you need to analysis every thing as the smallest elements, eg. molecule, atom, particle, to understand their relations and get the reality.
That is same in Sutta and Abhidhamma.
So, if you can't see and abandon even only one wrong view of trillion minds arising in a second, you are not Sotapanna.

Hi! Thanks for your answer. Just to clarify, I'm not asking whether attaining sotapatti is possible or not, but I'm asking for the epistemic justification for having confidence on the possibility of complete eradication of dukkha. One can have confidence, but based on this definition of knowledge, how can we justify such belief, beyond inductive reasoning and confidence? Kind regards!

First, something to contemplate: Modern Science, as a human endeavor, is based upon the idea known as Verificationism. This states that only facts verified through empirical evidence—based ultimately on our senses and their modern technological adjuncts—can be considered to be true. Everything else, including ideas coming from metaphysics and religion, are just beliefs found to be emotionally appealing.
And because Verificationism implies that the empirical evidence must be ‘objective’ (so that it can be verified by others) many ideas, especially those coming from metaphysics and religion, which Science holds cannot be empirically evidenced, as well as those related to interior personal experiences, such as those found in meditative practices, can never be verified to be true.
So if you are hoping for “scientific” evidence that liberation is possible you will be frustrated. Modern Science doesn’t operate there—by choice.
But here is one interesting truth: no scientist has ever verified verificationism. That means no one has ever proven that the central idea underlying the scientific method is valid. This idea that only something that is verified by empirical evidence can be true is just a belief that has emotional appeal to scientists.
And if you truly contemplate the logical structure of this belief, you will find that the aspects, processes, and rules of ‘reality’ must be true whether or not a human being has verified them to be true. That is, Truth must be primordially present for a thing to be verifiable.  And thus, we find a universe of otherwise unverifiable truth opening up for us, because there is more Truth in reality than Science can verify, even if scientists wanted to do so.
Another aspect of the answer to your question is that there is an irreconcilable divide between Modern Science and Buddhism in their understanding of what mind is. For scientists in general, the mind is just a word for the biochemical operations of the brain. For Buddhists, the brain, body, and all perceptions are activity that together are called mind, and this includes all the biochemical operations of the brain. Thus two totally different and opposing understandings of what mind is.
And so you ask how we know that complete liberation from dukkha is possible. The first part of the answer is that because suffering arises due to causes and conditions related to mind, and we are specifically training ‘our mind’ to remove the causes and conditions of suffering, it would be illogical and incoherent to assert that our practices—if conscientiously applied—did not end our suffering.
The second part of the answer is because we have the testimony of a myriad of enlightened beings who have all attested to having gone through this process of mind-training and the liberation from suffering that it brings, we would be insincere if we complained that there is no proof of such liberation. And of course, anyone who doubts the words of these enlightened beings are invited—as a fundamental aspect of their teachings—to see for themselves if they are not true, by applying the methods to their own mind.
Third, we have detailed training documents that have been honed over the course of millennia, which all describe the same ultimate accomplishments, even though they describe the stages of the process in different terms, and different degrees of ‘granularity’ of the stages. It would be disingenuous of us to argue that they do not—together—verify the resulting accomplishment.
And fourth, unlike Science, which operates on phenomena at scales beyond our capability to directly experience ourselves, the liberation from suffering (and the causes of it) is entirely accessible to each and every one of us, without any technological augmentation or equipment needed.
This is how any sincere individual would know the truth of liberation. Thus, it is not a belief, nor is it just an emotionally attractive idea without proof. It is True before we examine it, it is true because of all the testimony and documentation supporting it, and it is provable by each and every one of us, if we so desire.

I am downvoting this answer since the description of science is mainly straw man arguments. Also it's not very consistent to dismiss "verificationism" as you put it, and then refer to the alleged experience of the "myriads" of enlightened beings as proof.

@Erik I'm not sure if I understood correctly, but if we take all criteria in conjunction, they work consistently. For instance, verificaionalism could be insufficient by itself, even if it's useful to just work with it by having it as a underlying supporting assumption to start and sustain empirical investigation. But if we take that epistemological assumption and we connect it with the other criteria mentioned, the result could be an incomplete structure of assumptions, but they seem more justifiable than before. If I'm understanding something wrongly, I'd appreciate any correction.

Your reading, Erik, of my answer leaves me at a loss as to how you see my leveling the playing field between Science and Buddhism as a strawman argument since the OP doesn’t frame his question in exclusionary terms weighted towards a scientific answer. I think you may be mistaking what I am saying there.

I have nothing to write about your intentions, but i maintain that you're making a lot of unsubstantiated claims about what "modern science" is. Why are you making the ad hominem assumption that i'm mistaken, instead of addressing what i actually wrote?

Erik, Stack Exchange is focused on the best answer to a question, it’s not for critcizing the structure of other people’s answers. You exercised your right to down-vote the answer I provided to the OP’s question. Your explanation for why is founded on a misunderstanding. Thus, I responded to what you actually wrote, Erik. There is no straw man argument present in my answer because I am not refuting anything in the OP’s question. I am, instead, formulating a basis for the three-part answer that I gave.

Where do i write that you're refuting the OP's question? By straw man i am referring to your blanket statements about how scientists "operate".

Well, as I said, you exercised your down-vote privilege. Now you are engaged in argumentation. This whole thread should be removed by the moderators as off-topic. Your understanding of a “straw man argument” is incorrect. As for my “blanket statements” they are based on the work of Kurt Gödel.

Is, or is not, are the two fractions of scientific regards. Difficult...especially to try to kick out science with scientific argument, or...

It’s actually a logical analysis, Samana. In my experience, using logic is the only way to clarify issues with modern scientific practice, although it can elicit howls from the faithful. Kurt Gödel, an eminent logician of the 20th Century made that point about Verificationism never having been verified to be true—and in fact it can’t be. His succinct insight that underlies his argument is that Modern Science confuses proof and truth. Truth is not the result of having proof, Truth is the necessary condition for proof to succeed, but does not itself depend upon proof—in all fields.

How do we know attaining complete liberation from dukkha is possible?

That's a good and important question.
I think when starting out on the Buddhist path and one doesn't yet have much wisdom from insight meditation practice, it's more of a leap of faith.
One can read in books, listen to Dhamma talks or be taught by teachers and practitioners, that there's a Dhamma called Nibbana, an existing reality that doesn't arise or cease, that one can experience by following and cultivating the Noble Eightfold Path to its full maturity.
Sounds too good to be true, right?
The thing is, we can't really know before experiencing it by ourselves, by gaining sufficient wisdom from meditation practice. Nibbana cannot be understood intellectually due to it's depth and profundity. So it's a leap of faith until one can become a first hand witness and gain insights into how reality works. At some point on the path, when the mind has been cultivated to a certain point, it will begin experiencing cessation, i.e. the mind goes to Nibbana. In beginning only for short amounts of time, later it can stay in cessation for hours or days.
Please don't be satisfied with my words. If you really want to know the answer to your question, go practice the Noble Eightfold Path and see what happens. I think that's the best answer I can give.

When we practice by sitting in meditation, we will (in a fairly short time) reach a state where tanhā and dukkha 'spontaneously' disappear, if only for a moment or two. I'm not even talking about a true satori experience. I just mean a moment where the waters of the mind grow calm and still — where we are not doing or thinking anything, because there's nothing particular to do or think — a lacuna after the mind-waves have ebbed away, and before they come rolling back in.
By that we know that tanhā and dukkha can cease. What more epistemic justification do we need?
Of course, there's the practice... We have to broaden and deepen that lacuna within our meditation; we have to learn to extend it beyond out meditations into our convention al lives. There's an element of faith that it can be done, obviously, but it isn't faith in some externality. It is faith in ourselves, and our ability to work with that spaciousness.

Thanks for your answer! I agree, that can be a powerful, transforming and indicative experience, indeed. But I think, that if meditation is not supported by some degree of Right View, it can lead to concluding things that are not necessarily true. For instance, one could think that since there is no vitakka and vicara in the second jhana, that would imply that enlightenment consist of living with no thoughts at all. In my ignorance, I think this is one of the sources that feed the idea of mindfulness being non-judgemental living. What are your thoughts on this? Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores: You asked about epistemic justification for the eradication of dukkha and tanhā. Right practice — practice that extends and deepens that lacuna — is a very different topic that deserves its own question. All I can coherently say here is that practice entails misunderstanding. People will misunderstand what they haven't yet understood, and that's ok. They understand as best they can, and their understanding will get better (or at least, their misunderstanding will get thinner).

For most individuals, liberation is not possible. Why dwell on what is not possible? Let it go.

Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.

Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing.

Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom.

Dhammapada
I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did so, I
saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those
with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes
and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them
seeing disgrace & danger in the other world.
MN 26

Hi Dhammadhatu. Thanks for answering. I don't think your post answers the question. It seems to be focusing on the instances in which Nibbana is not possible. But what about the times where we think it is actually possible? Why do we think it is possible? Kind regards!

Below, Ven. Ananda answers your question in SN 51.15, but I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for. He answers the question of whether the path to end desire using desire, is a finite one or an endless one.
If you ask, is it possible to know that one has attained Arahatship, I would say yes, because all mental suffering, unsatisfactoriness and discontent would cease without remainder. Even the slightest mental discontent would reveal the fact that one is not an Arahat.
If you ask, is it at all possible to attain complete liberation from suffering, I would say this. The theoretical background of Buddhism is sound and complete, and this is partially explained in Andrei's answer. Has somebody attained enlightenment based on this? Yes. The Buddha and his direct disciples did.
But can you know for sure that it's possible to attain complete liberation from suffering without faith and/or direct experience of it? I would say, "NO". After all, many ascetics in the Buddha's time wandered aimlessly without finding liberation. Worse still, some of them experienced temporary jhana states and may have mistaken it for complete enlightenment.
Is it important to know that complete liberation from suffering is possible? I would say "NO". Even a lay person practising the Five Precepts, Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood, should already experience a significant reduction in suffering, compared to one who does not practise these. The benefits even for a beginner are self-evident to justify the whole path.
From SN 51.15:

“This being the case, Master Ānanda, the path is endless, not finite.
For it’s not possible to give up desire by means of desire.”
“Well then, brahmin, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can
answer as you like. What do you think, brahmin? Have you ever had a
desire to walk to the park, but when you arrived at the park, the
corresponding desire faded away?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Have you ever had the energy to walk to the park, but when you
arrived at the park, the corresponding energy faded away?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Have you ever had the idea to walk to the park, but when you arrived
at the park, the corresponding idea faded away?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Have you ever inquired regarding a walk to the park, but when you
arrived at the park, the corresponding inquiry faded away?”
“Yes, sir.”
“In the same way, take a mendicant who is perfected—with defilements
ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be
done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly
ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through
enlightenment. They formerly had the desire to attain perfection, but
when they attained perfection the corresponding desire faded away.
They formerly had the energy to attain perfection, but when they
attained perfection the corresponding energy faded away. They formerly
had the idea to attain perfection, but when they attained perfection
the corresponding idea faded away. They formerly inquired regarding
attaining perfection, but when they attained perfection the
corresponding inquiry faded away. What do you think, brahmin? This
being the case, is the path endless or finite?”
“Clearly, Master Ānanda, this being the case, the path is finite, not
endless. Excellent, Master Ānanda! Excellent!

Nirvana (lit. "blowing out"), Satori (悟り, "awakening") or Kenshō (見性, "seeing the true nature") does not equate "the eradication of dukkha". It is seeing the true nature of the arising duality of concepts like dukkha and sukkha.
In some aspects, this is very much like the scientific method: science created theories that predicted the existence of atoms, quarks & gluons making out these atoms long before we developed technologies to detect them. Our human sensory range is ill-equipped to "see" this level of reality, but experiments have demonstrated it exists. These theories and experiments undergo peer review before they are accepted or rejected, and any scientist is free to criticize any hypothesis or theory. This principle is similar to these words in the Kalama Sutra:

Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.
Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other
wonderful being.
Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and
benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as
true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

Buddhism is called an upāya ("expedient means"), like a boat to take you to the other side of the river. The goal is not to carry the boat on your back further inland. There is no reason or scripture that prevents modern science to be an upāya as well, although it would mean "letting go" of some of the preconceptions that Buddhist scripture has via-a-vis, for example, neuroscience.
Buddhism states that some forms of consciousness are not dependent on the physical body. Neuroscience has proven beyond any doubt that this is impossible. This is why Buddhism is and will always be experiential: you cannot just be told the true nature of self, as this needs to be conveyed in language (be it human or mathematical), and this is totally different to a human being from experiencing the true nature of self.
Conflicts such as these between Buddhist doctrine and science pale in comparison to what Buddhism and Neuroscience have discovered independently and agree on: the illusion of self, the constant flux of brain and body, and that cognitive faculties are not fixed, but can be enhanced.
Science has the exact same challenge as Buddhism in conveying these findings: anything that relates to the psyche has to be experienced on an individual level to truly understand this, even if we can formulate theories and equations for the process. It's like the difference between looking at a map and walking a road depicted on that map.

Q: How do we know attaining an internal state is possible?
A: By attaining the internal state.

The ultimate Truth is beyond words.

The Way is wordless.

→ The Zen Teachings Of Bodhidharma - Translated by Red Pine
https://webcomicname.com/post/183722270609

By reaching stream-enter, all doubts vanish for him (not us/we!), good householder, after one has really left home, at least for some while.
And let Atma ask: what is this the ongoing brain-masturbating (stimulating useless, just for 'joy', actually not having a current relation) good for? Investigating the reason might give a lot of answers for release directly.
Ehipassiko!
And Faith In Awakening might be of help for those serious about it, facing the first Noble truth, not just bored playing around after some "sex".

...The Buddha never placed unconditional demands on anyone's faith. And for anyone from a culture where the dominant religions do place such demands on one's faith [science for example], this is one of Buddhism's most attractive features. We read his famous instructions to the Kalamas, in which he advises testing things for oneself, and we see it as an invitation to believe, or not, whatever we like. Some people go so far as to say that faith has no place in the Buddhist tradition, that the proper Buddhist attitude is one of skepticism.
But even though the Buddha recommends tolerance and a healthy skepticism toward matters of faith, he also makes a conditional request about faith: If you sincerely want to put an end to suffering — that's the condition — you should take certain things on faith, as working hypotheses, and then test them through following his path of practice....

Faith, Saddha, has Dukkha as it's cause, and Awakening goes back to Saddha. One not seeing the suffering in stimulating, how could Saddha and letting go of unskilfull, the path, ever arise? He wouldn't let go, even if actually knowing and only suffering would an informed lead out.
And no, like some stated here, it's not required to reach Paranibbana, or Arahatshipp first to be sure that complete ending of suffering is possible. What one drives further after having seen for oneself the first time by enter the stream, is knowing and one is actually already pound, just a matter of time and effort, the fire still burning and hurting lesser or stronger behind. Not easy to abound the fetter of doubt for the most, blind on one or both eyes, since it needs both, perceiving suffering and the way out.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, households our other world-bindind trades, but for release]

You know it because you know there is Dukkha. Also you know there is remedy.  Question springs from the Answer you already had.
Remedy is painful, like a bullet shot in body persist a wound. A remedy to pull out the bullet is painful process. So, one let physician do nothing. He says, let bullet be there. It's a painful to pull out.
It's the same case here. You know by ending of sorrow, 'you' comes to end. 'You' finish, you die. Who want to come to an end? Only those who accept Pain. Hope, this answers what you looking for.