text:
Compassion vs the invisible hand and capitalism
Compassion and empathy encompassing all beings seems to be the Buddhist ideal. How do Buddhists reconcile this today with Adam Smith's invisible hand? I.e., the idea that following our self-interest will lead to the best (economic) results? Was Buddha wrong or was Smith wrong?
Note: It is clear that self-interest and the invisible hand are qualified and moderated in today's capitalist societies. On the other hand, it is still the core of their economic mechanisms and our daily economic behavior. And the communist experiment based on the idea of sharing everything ended up as a large tragedy (not the least for Tibetan Buddhists).
UPDATE:
Thanks for the interesting spectrum of answers so far.
Let me expand:
Buddha empathizes with the whole universe and takes decisions that
benefit the whole universe most. Extreme altruism based on extreme
knowledge leading to the optimal result. While Smith says that
following one's egoistic self-interest leads to the optimal (economic)
results. And no knowledge of the rest of the universe is needed - just
follow your own self-interest. Both are recipes for the behavior
of the masses, but Smith's is much simpler to implement.
Example 1: If I follow my self-interest and buy a product from the
cheapest supplier, I support the most efficient allocation of
resources (in an ideal market), the most talented businessmen and
managers, etc. Others are incentivized to improve or learn another
skill. Should I instead empathize and support them too?
Example 2: Communism/socialism tried to replace Smith by planning
across the whole economy.  An attempt at global empathy and selfless
maximization of the common benefit. But it did not work and the result
was much worse than Smith's approach. The road to hell was paved
with good intentions.
Example 3: Google avoids paying taxes in the EU via the Irish
trick. Eric Schmidt once commented that they are "proud
capitalists". So he/Google believes in doing good via
Smith/self-interest. Many other people (in the EU in particular) think
that using such loopholes is unethical and bad for the EU economy.
What would be the Buddha/Buddhist views in these cases?

The answers and comments are useful - thanks again for all of them. They made me think of asking a followup question on this forum in the future. All the moral criticism of the invisible hand is justified. But its important aspect is not appreciated here. The invisible hand is a mechanism that propagates information across billions of actors. It decides what will be produced, done, and how. It is a huge distributed computer processing a lot of data every second. None of us (Buddha maybe?) sees all that data when we want to decide "more ethically". Hence also the failure of planned utopias.

I think it is clear that Buddhism does not concern itself with capitalism, or any other economic “ism,” except to the extent that one should occupy oneself with a “right livelihood.”
And I want to point out that modern ‘capitalism’ bears little resemblance to Adam Smith’s use of the word. He had nothing good to say about corporations, and his use of the term “free trade” referred, not to to the ‘right’ of multinational corporations to move their capital freely around the world in search of cheaper labor pools, but rather to the right of each individual to freely move about to ply their trade. This is clearly not the case today.
Modern capitalism cannot survive without captive labor, who necessarily suffer, in order to keep costs as low as possible. This—modern corporatist capitalism—is not “right livelihood” in Buddhist terms, but people today are stuck within a system that is oblivious to the needs of the majority of people, spiritual or economic, or even sustainable in any sense. Capital can move on, after destroying an area, impoverishing the captive populations. Thus, we face the continuing crisis of global ecocide for ‘profit’.
The only “invisible hand” evident in today’s economy is one that pops out to sweep whatever is on the table into some private pocket. Quant-trading firms are only the most recent and efficient example of this, in the financial trading markets.
Compassion towards all sentient beings is more than an “ideal” in Buddhism, it is the path to accomplishing everything else, including our survival as a species.

Update to the OP’s update:
I’d like to correct some of your assertions. I am doing this because you are making assumptions about the Buddha and Buddhism as if they operated under the same understanding as economists, which is not the case.
The Buddha does not ”empathize with” anything. The Buddha manifests what is known as “Great Responsiveness” (Mahakaruna), which is often translated as “great compassion.” It is different though, than the compassion that unrealized humans can manifest, as it is not a feeling of compassion towards the suffering of others.
It is, instead, a mode of being in which all actions are directed spontaneously towards the benefit of all beings in each context (moment). This does not exclude the one manifesting the responsiveness, but includes all, thus it is not altruism—in its normal sense—either. (By that I mean that in Buddhism, “selfless” (Anatta) means something totally different than “selfless” in economic theory.)
Thus, when the Buddha taught, for example, his answers were always slightly different, just as his questioners’ understanding was always slightly different, and just as yours and mine are slightly different. This difference in teachings was not something planned, they arose spontaneously. I want to emphasize that because it is so different from the world we believe we live in, unless you happen to be an engineer who has to deal with the stochastic nature of electronic components on a micro-scale, where the spontaneity is something one has to always design for.
So, think of Mahakaruna as the great Market in the sky, making sure everyone involved goes home comfortable with what transpired, only really, and not just in some abstract, in the best-of-all-worlds, kind of academic hypothesis. Because, while Smith could assert “that following one's egoistic self-interest leads to the optimal (economic) results” he could never prove such a thing, and our experience to date is strongly indicative that no such thing is true.
I’d also like to point out that Smith’s “recipe” is only simple if you exclude the monetary system, banking system, communications technology, shipping capabilities and the infrastructure all that needs, storage facilities, corporate transnational legal structures, blah, blah.
In short, Smith’s “recipe” is only simple because all of the hard work has already been done. Unfortunately, it all got sold at a steep discount by corrupt politicians to greedy—as opposed to just ”self-interested”—people, who have undermined the proposed elegance and positive benefits of such a system, in order to aggrandize their own wealth, no matter how destructive (i.e. costs foisted off on the public) their activities are.
It may be true that communism and socialism (not the same things in theory, just in historical practice) have failed, but corporate capitalism is in the end months of ecocidal destruction of the world.
And whatever corporate capitalism actually is, it is lightyears away from anything Smith ever envisioned—but more to your question, it is anathema to what the Buddha taught.

Smith's ideas have been expressed exactly and proved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics . Everybody agrees that these are simplified models - that's how science proceeds. Such simplified models however do advance our understanding of the world and help us think further.

But you criticize other economic systems in your question, based on their real-world failures. I do the same of capitalism. A Wikipedia list of theorems, derived from simple models of systems prove nothing. You seem to want to assert a simplistic comparison between Buddhist   Compassion versus self-interested economic activity, while ignoring all the real-world faults of activity based upon self-interest. The two cannot be compared because they are in different categories. Apples and Oranges, in other words.

My comment was focused only on the claim that "he could never prove such a thing". Nothing else.

Dismissing the question as Apples vs Oranges seems a bit too easy. Both Buddhism and Economics are vast topics. It is easy to dismiss any attempt at a high-level comparison as simplistic and uninformed. But Buddha/Buddhism do advise us on our everyday life. Often from the point of view of applying compassion and kindness. So it should be able to provide concrete answers - e.g., to the three concrete examples. And so will attempt economists, using their scientific theories and reasoning.

I do not ignore the real-world issues of self-interest - see the words "qualified" and "moderated" in the original question. And I acknowledge that the models, theorems and proofs are (very) simplified. But the fact is that even with all the qualifications, self-interest and the invisible hand are still a very large part of both today's economic theory and practice.

“He could never prove such a thing” because of the totalizing nature of the hypothesis. The necessary dataset is too large and unknowable to assert “truth”.  As to comparing self-interested activities versus Buddhist compassion please read my answers to your question.

Can you comment on what would be the Buddha/Buddhist concrete behavior in the three examples? Perhaps looking at the level of practical everyday action will help us move forward.

@Dianne, as I said in my answers already, the focus of Buddhism is not on economics. In my opinion, Example 1 assumes that self-interest is in having the cheapest product, which is false in my (Buddhist) case; that the cheapest supplier makes the best use of resources, which is the opposite of my lifetime of experience (because you end up with a crap product); and that the most talented businessMEN! and managers are those who put out cheap products, but my experience has been that they are the most ‘crooked’. Others are incentivized however to follow the race to the bottom that is started.

Example 2, while mostly a political statement, does miss the point that “communism/socialism” is neither communism, nor socialism, but merely central administration and planning of state-owned assets. The most important point to make here is that in a Buddhist world, people would not be ‘operating’ in the same way as those that we have historically seen, because the central point of Buddhism is to train one’s mind, thus changing one’s behavior in a major way. And as a side note, as inefficient as the historical examples have been, they didn’t destroy the world because of their inefficiency.

Example 3: have you read a description of the “Irish trick”? Or any of the others? They are not “loopholes” that are being used, they are sophisticated attempts to attack legal and economic systems by playing off their differences for one’s own benefit, much as in the States, the attack on the Post Office is an attempt to undermine the democratic system in order to disenfranchise multitudes of voters. Yes, these activities are unethical, immoral, and should result in the disenfranchisement of the company in question — Google in your example. As a Buddhist, the point is to live in harmony w/All

You think by pursuing self-interests you're feeding the economic growth, when in reality you are feeding Samsara. But let me take a step back.
Buddha gave many teachings. If you read the suttas, collections of student memories of him giving the teachings, you'll see that he comes back to some topics again and again, in different variations.
One topic he comes back to quite often is the topic of (metaphorical) feeding. There he shows how various types of tendencies grow when given food or sustenance.
For example, when we eat physical food, we give sustenance to the physical organism, so it can continue living and growing bigger. When we consume mental food, we give sustenance to our mind and intellect, and it can grow bigger. When we consume an addicting substance we give sustenance to the addiction so it can continue and grow. When we consume political speeches which are full of divisive rhetorics and hatred, we feed anger in ourselves, so it can continue and grow. -- All of these are cyclic tendencies that feed on certain type of fuel helping them grow and perpetuate themselves.
Similarly,  when we pursue our self-interests, this too can be seen as a type of fuel or sustenance. In this case we consume material goods and services and they serve for our personal enjoyment as well as food for our social and economic activity. In other words, it serves as food for the maintenance and growth of the same cyclical tendency, the tendency of other people to satisfy your interests in exchange for compensation so they can pursuit their interests. This is called consumerist economy, a system where consumption has to keep growing in order for it to work.
Depending on your perspective, this can be seen as a good thing, or it can be seen as a horrible thing. From my perspective, pursuing our self-interests feeds a cyclic tendency called consumerist society, which is a backbone of Samsara. Consumerist society promotes the exact values and perpetuates the exact evils that keep the mind suffering and deluding itself. Yes, it provides the continuous improvement of material conditions but at what price? At the price of keeping the mind trapped in a cycle of frustration, consumption and pursuit, and destroying the planet through overconsumption of natural resources.
You think by pursuing self-interests you're feeding economic growth, but in reality you are throwing logs in the fire of Samsara.
Now, you are asking, is there an alternative? Is it possible to build a better society, given the catastrophic demise of every communist experiment around the world? In my opinion, it's hard but not impossible. We would need to shift the basic value system from being focused primarily on self-interest and reorient it towards altruism as the central social paradigm. A donation-based system of volunteer engagement, sitting on top of universal basic income, sitting on top of a limited supply digital currency. No state to oppress people! No government to blame for our problems! Direct democracy, or you could say altruistic donnation-based meritocracy. Sort of Open-Source-on-steroids or Kickstarter-as-political-system, adopted by the society at large. I'm sure Buddha would have approved ;)
I know, I know, it sounds like a utopian fantasy. But let me ask you one question: What do you want to live for? Do you really want to die without having lived? If not then why not try something different? Why not try something more positive than the past?
Because right now, things aren't looking up. Things are getting worse.
So what do you think? Are you ready to take some risks and embrace change? Are you ready to start living life to the fullest? Are you ready to stop being a slave to the system and your own mind? Are you ready to be free?

heh, thanks man. sorry about fighting

The (possibly sad) state of affairs is that only Smith seems to give us (with many qualifications) a simple/practical recipe (supported by an explanation) on how to self-organize production: buy products for the lowest price. Altruism as a way to self-organize the economy at large has so far failed. We may need some more science of altruism resulting in more pragmatic recipes. E.g., how should I decide between supporting an open-source project X or Y? Is there a procedure Buddha would apply?

@Dianne The Buddha's advice about right livelihood for laypeople doesn't seem very detailed -- I supposed he'd recommend you become a monastic if you're so inclined. I make it a rule to avoid "defence" projects (i.e. business in weapons). Apart from that I've been willing to work with telecomms mostly, and fintech too, and would prefer to work in telemedicine if I could.

Buddha's guidance to his contemporaries is as relevant  today as ever:  to prioritize sponsoring of the ethically worthy. Meaning, the way you decide which "open source project" to sponsor is by assessing its ethical impact. If you think the project will contribute to long term health, peace and well-being of many people, then that's the project you sponsor. It does take some thinking to assess potential projects but perhaps that's exactly what's missing in the "buy low sell high" approach?

The Buddha was not wrong, and Adam Smith was not wrong either. Both are addressing different topics, but they overlap.
First, let's see what the Buddha taught.
Running a business and participating in economic activities is allowed for lay people, as long as they observe the five precepts and virtue (sila), which includes Right Livelihood (samma ajivo). Please also see this answer and this answer.
The Vanijja Sutta states:

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
engage in."

Next, the Buddha taught about financial management, or perhaps you can say microeconomics.
The Sigalovada Sutta states:

The wise endowed with virtue
Shine forth like a burning fire,
Gathering wealth as bees do honey
And heaping it up like an ant hill.
Once wealth is accumulated,
Family and household life may follow.
By dividing wealth into four parts,
True friendships are bound;
One part should be enjoyed;
Two parts invested in business;
And the fourth set aside
Against future misfortunes."

The Dighajanu Sutta states:

"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
my outflow will not exceed my income.'

The Adiya Sutta talks about the five types of benefits that can be obtained from wealth, which are summarized below:

'My wealth has been enjoyed,
my dependents supported,
protected from calamities by me.
I have given supreme offerings
& performed the five oblations.
I have provided for the virtuous,
the restrained,
followers of the holy life.
For whatever aim a wise householder
would desire wealth,
that aim I have attained.
I have done what will not lead to future distress.'
When this is recollected by a mortal,
a person established in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones,
he is praised in this life
and, after death, rejoices in heaven.

Also from the Anana Sutta which talks about "the four kinds of bliss that can be attained in the proper season, on the proper occasions, by a householder partaking of sensuality", summarizes it as follows:

Knowing the bliss of debtlessness,
& recollecting the bliss of having,
enjoying the bliss of wealth,
the mortal then sees clearly with discernment.
Seeing clearly — the wise one —
he knows both sides:
that these are not worth one sixteenth-sixteenth
of the bliss of blamelessness.

Now what about Adam Smith's invisible hand?
Adam Smith is talking about the link between microeconomics and macroeconomics - the self-interest of individual people and firms (aka the invisible hand), and its effects on macroeconomics - how would a free market economy be shaped by the self-interest of individual people and firms.
So, if you combine what the Buddha taught and what Adam Smith proposed - if every person followed what the Buddha taught, then we would see the following effects:

The invisible hand would bring a downfall in the five types of businesses which are considered wrong livelihood
25% of all income would be saved
50% of all income reinvested in businesses that do not violate the five precepts and Right Livelihood
25% of all income spent on enjoyments that don't violate the five precepts and Right Livelihood
Very low rate of bankruptcy and insolvency due to individuals maintaining their livelihood in tune and being debtless as far as possible
Sufficient expenditure to ensure the needs of individuals and their family members are taken care of, within their means, and within the confines of the five precepts and Right Livelihood
Donations and charity will be done, especially by the lay Buddhists to the monastic order, so that they are well taken care of

So, I don't see a conflict between the two. Self-interest here simply means how the individuals make their financial decisions.

Adam Smith was obviously wrong because his invisible hand resulted in much cruelty, poverty & crime during the Industrial Revolution (including slavery & child labour), resulting in, for example, the establishment of Australia as a convict settlement in 1788, which resulted in the decimation of the indigenous Australian people.
If an invisible hand worked to mitigate the cruel effects of greed, Buddhism would not have been required to provide teachings about the duties of government (DN 26) and the duties of employers & employees (DN 31).
If societies followed the teachings of Buddhism, free-enterprise would occur ethically and alternate extreme non-Dhammic ideologies, such as Communism, would never arise.
As for Tibet, it appeared to be a 'capitalist' society prior to Communism, where a minority of feudal landlords owned most of the capital or land and often treated the peasants cruelly. While not related to Buddhism, I personally doubt capitalism is inherently related to free-enterprise & democracy but is, instead, another form of totalitarianism were a small group of people take ownership & control the capital (means of production).
In summary, the Western history of its industrialization shows it was both necessary & optimal when government regulated capitalism with ethical laws; similar to those recommended by Buddhism.

Compassion and empathy encompassing all beings seems to be the Buddhist ideal.

This sounds more like jainism than the dhamma. In buddhism, the ideal is ''Endowed with wisdom and virtue.'' https://suttacentral.net/sn11.16/en/bodhi
With buddhism applied to non ascetics, you just fall back to the five precepts, giving food and so on like https://suttacentral.net/an5.36/en/bodhi and the next sutta. For instance The non-lack of possession is the fruit of giving https://suttacentral.net/tha-ap521/en/walters
and of course the fruit of the gist is best when the receiver is ''Endowed with wisdom and virtue.''


text:
Is it conventional to use third-person speech when conversing with a monk?
In this comment, Samana Johann wrote,

worthy to raise a question on it and it's perfect training to use only 3-person and no calling of names, adressing just proper positions

The topic is, using "3rd person" modes of speech -- instead of personal pronouns like "I" and "you" and "we".
I think that means, in English, that instead of saying for example:

Would you like a glass of water?

... or more politely ...

May I fetch you a glass of water?

... you might ask instead ...

Would the Venerable accept a glass of water?

Similarly perhaps the venerable might refer to himself in the third person -- so perhaps, for example, "This person will...", instead of, "I will...".
And perhaps you're expected to refer to yourself by your own "title" too ...

Would the venerable allow "this person" (instead of "allow me") to fetch a glass of water?

... or instead of "this person", perhaps "this novice" or "this householder" or whatever your "proper position" is, instead of "I"?

What can you tell me about this topic? What are the social conventions -- how does that vary, from person to person, from one society to another, from one context to another (e.g. online or in person), from one language to another (e.g. English or otherwise)?
The little I've gathered online is that it's polite -- and proper, i.e. good training -- to use a phrase like "Bhante" instead of a person's name, when addressing them directly (i.e. in the second person) ...

Would you like a glass of water, Bhante?
Bhante, would you like a glass of water?
Would Bhante like a glass of water?

The last (the third) of these sounds very (excessively) formal to my ear -- and archaic, it disappeared from the English language when "people" stopped having personal servants, who might have said, "Would Sir like a cup of tea?" -- or addressing your parents by their title, "Would Mother like a cup of tea?"
Because it's so old-fashioned (I never hear it) it sounds unnatural to me -- formal but an "affectation" -- and therefore, to be avoided! Unless it is conventional, still?
I guess I most specifically want to know how to address people (Venerables) online, especially on this site, and in English -- though understanding how to talk in person could be useful too -- and especially about when using English (or other European languages, or North American).
I don't think I've seen a site online, where people avoid the 2nd person altogether.
Is it something which varies from one monk to another? If there are three options ...

Informal -- "Would you like...?"
Deferential -- "Bhante, would you accept...?"
Ultra-formal -- "Would Bhante accept...?

... will some monks prefer one and some another? Should I vary what I say (or how I say it) depending on the feedback I get from the specific person? Is there any safe default, which can always be considered not-impolite?

Perhaps I was wrong to say the 3rd-person form is obsolete in English and unheard of. I asked on English Language and Usage -- someone there pointed out that the third person is still used  by some customer services workers -- for example, "Would madam like to register?" -- it's not entirely far-fetched.

What does good householders, considering his own good prepared samples, think: Which way requires the most sacrifices, mindfulness, patient, skill in many regards and earn the highest merits of them? This will then easy answer good householders question fast and doing well and is only convention for insider, a matter of Sila, and for outsiders place for merits in the sphere of Dana.
And in regard of meritorious deeds it's actually, different when after trade, not importand of what another might prefer.
Of course, a wise monk would fast think "a learned with pleasing behaviour" if good householder speaks in best manners, but whether on likes to use possibilities for merits or for gains, that wouldn't touch a wise monk much aside of possible not seeing ways given to teach.
As for usual monks good householder usually would/could meet, they are not used to representing a field of merits, are merely ashamed and might be high confused if speaking in skilled and venerating manner, as most are actually former followers of marxism, where such seech is regarded as unproductive and time and effort feeding, strong objected toward gains in the world.
"'Please', may my person ask good householder, whether good householder would be able to consider further and deeper on this matter of topic by him, if my person would give further into it in possible more supportive enviroment for such?"

Abhivadanasilissa
niccam vuddhapacayino
cattaro dhamma vaddhanti
ayu vanno sukham balam.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange or what ever else world-binding trade but for escape from this wheel]

Personal pronouns are very language and culture dependent.
For e.g. German has "du" and "Sie", but English only has "you". Other languages also have formal and informal second person pronouns, for example Hindi ("aap", "tum", "tu").
Thai and Burmese, being strongly influenced by Buddhism for centuries, have special pronouns to use when talking to monks that is not normally used for conversations between lay people. This applies to second person pronouns but maybe also first person pronouns - I'm not sure.
In some languages, there is the informal "you" but the formal second person pronoun is a title. For e.g. in Malay or Indonesian, if a person is a doctor or a professor or a captain, then one could say "Would doctor like a drink?" or "would professor like a drink?" or "would Captain like a drink?"
However, in the English language, we only have "I" and "you". We may address a person with their title, but we always use "you" thereafter for e.g. "Captain, would you like to have your drink now?" I would say "Would Captain like to have his drink now?" is incorrect in English.
In my opinion, it is not right to apply the linguistic rules of one language to another. So, asking "Bhante, would you like to have your meal now?" is correct in English. But, asking "Would Bhante like to have his meal now?" would be incorrect in English.

"Would 'the Captain' like" would be correct, kind of ... it's only incorrect in that it's archaic or forced, or used only in contexts which we are not personally very acquainted with: see Illeism: In everyday speech. It may confuse the hearer -- if I referred to myself as "he" people might well wonder who I'm talking about -- and (in my opinion) they might see that as affected, eccentric, attention-seeking behaviour.

The one time I have ever heard anyone talk like that  (i.e. referring to themselves in the 3rd person) in real life or in my personal experience, was when they were in a mental hospital. Communicating with a mental patient, I have taken it as good, professional advice that I should speak conventionally -- avoiding Folie à deux -- that's a bit off-topic here, though.

Anyway I'm motivated to learn what's considered polite and appropriate -- perhaps respectful but not obsequious, a middle way if that's correct -- in a given society. With the people on discourse.suttacentral.com -- and with Ven. Yuttadhammo when he posted here -- people seemed to use what I called the "deferential" not the "ultra-formal" or "frozen" registers. That is (these two online sites are) kind of a limited sample though, and not necessarily orthodox, hence the question.

Anyway, "it is not right to apply the linguistic rules of one language to another" seems to be your answer, and is clear enough. Also there is a "thou" in English with its own rich history of meaning.

@ChrisW Indeed, that's my answer - "it is not right to apply the linguistic rules of one language to another". Yes. I agree with the use of the "deferential" for communication with monks in English.

I asked on English Language and Usage -- someone pointed out that the third person is still used e.g. by customer services workers, instead of the 2nd person, "Would madam like to register?" -- it's not entirely far-fetched.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Not remembering past life(s)?
I wanted to ask how Buddhism explains why we don't remember our past lives?
Why bother with the Buddhist path when we will not remember this temporary life in our next? I heard that for example contrary to rebirth in the human realm, beings who are reborn in the Pureland of Amitabha can remember their past life. Why bother practice other methods and not only just focus on reaching Sukhavati?
If I won't remember the temporary "me" of this life in the next, why bother practicing at all? Isn't it better to know about my continuity in the next life for progression?

You can practice for happiness in this life. Whether you believe in rebirth or not, practicing for happiness in this life is a main concern. Some people attain the ability to recollect their previous births. But this ability comes after decades of consistent, disciplined practice.

Do you remember what you had for lunch yesterday? We remember only if we are interested in that thing or it is extremely important for us. We continually become because we are not happy with the past or present. The time of the arrow goes only forward.

Many new to Buddhism are stuck into these matters and created a feeling of discomfort, including myself.
But when I longer study Buddhism, it leads me to study something easier to understand like Karma in current life instead of past life. I.e. how to utilize the SWOT analysis soft skill?
If you are talking about past life, likely it will lead to past life Karma thinking which is very difficult to digest; even Einstein was not able to decode it completely.
So, why do you bother too much on it? Secondly, thinking too much about the past that you are unable to change or back to the future, that is impossible, just simply making you suffer psychologically and it is a negative thought.

Most of us spend a lot of time inside our own mind — worrying about
the future, replaying events in the past, and generally focusing on
the parts of life that leave us dissatisfied

(source)
Here is a so called proven story about incarnation by Mahatma Gandhi that is hardly believed to be false.

In the essay "To Suffer Is an Active Verb", Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote:

This is one of the reasons
why the Buddha doesn’t have us try to go back into the past and ask,
“What did I do to deserve an illness, a mental state, a situation in
life?” He said that if you tried to trace all those things back, you’d
go crazy. In fact, he said, you can’t trace back and find a beginning
point for the ignorance that underlies suffering. But you can see what
you’re doing to sustain it now.

So when things come up in life, don’t ask yourself, “What kamma did I
do in the past that’s making me suffer now?” or “What is somebody else
doing to me that’s making me suffer?” The question is: “What am I
doing right now? To what extent am I actively creating the suffering?
To what extent can I see that it really is true that to suffer is an
active verb, that it all comes from my own actions?” When you see
that, you also see the opportunity not to do those things anymore.
You’re not compelled to do them anymore. That’s when you’re free. As
for where the outside conditions came from in the past, that’s no
longer an issue. The suffering you were creating moment to moment was
the only suffering that was weighing down the mind. And now you’ve
stopped.

The Buddha taught us to cultivate virtues and be ashamed of committing acts of misconduct, in order to avoid suffering in future. But we're not supposed to wallow in remorse over the past. Just learn the lessons of the past and move on quickly.
It's skillful to be ashamed of committing bad kamma, but it is not skillful to feel remorse over past kamma.
From AN 5.57:

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

I wanted to ask how Buddhism explains why we don't remember our past lives?

Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Memory is not me, mine or myself. If so, how do you expect to remember past lives?

Why bother with the Buddhist path when we will not remember this
temporary life in our next?

We do not wish to return. No more rebirths. We wish that this is the last birth of me. Why do we wish so? Because birth leads to suffering. How do we ensure we do not return? By following the noble 8 fold path (or the Buddhist path).

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


text:
At which stage of enlightenment are the aggregates seen as not-self fully?
In the Khemaka Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/sn22.89/en/sujato) Khemaka is an Anagami and he sees the aggregates as not-self. Based on this I guess the answer to my question is probably stream-entry or anagami, but I'm not sure.
This is a quote from that sutta:

“In the same way, reverends, I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to
form, or apart from form. I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to feeling
… perception … choices … consciousness, or apart from consciousness.
For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the
conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t regard anything as ‘I am this’.
Although a noble disciple has given up the five lower fetters, they
still have a lingering residue of the conceit ‘I am’, the desire ‘I
am’, and the underlying tendency ‘I am’ which has not been eradicated.

fully?surely you know the answer to that

The conceit ‘I am’ is the 8th fetter; only fully eradicated by an Arahant.

Bhikkhus, there are these five higher fetters. What five? Lust for form, lust for the formless, conceit, restlessness, ignorance. SN 45.180

The stream-enterer has overcome 'identity view' ('sakkaya-ditthi'); which means seeing the group (body; kaya) of aggregates are not a self. However, the stream-enterer's seeing of the aggregates as not-self is obviously not complete enough to remove all ten fetters and uproot all outflows of defilements & conceit.
Therefore, arahant is the stage of enlightenment where the aggregates are seen as not-self fully.

Sakkaya Dithi (self-view) is fully eliminated in the Sotapanna (stream-enterer) stage.

At each stage of awakening, good householder, but only on the last, highest stage one would no more take on them again, even not in refined spheres.
Of course it can be that one isn't aware of the group-definition of aggregates, so the are also other sets of definition of the world. Worldlings do therefore, as long as not winned the stream, hardly understand Sakkāyadiṭṭhi.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but to escape from the world of suffering]


text:
Is anything ever complete?
I think Buddhists agree that the past cannot return, look at e.g. Dogen on firewood, or perhaps the Awakening of Faith

all that had been conceived in the past was as
hazy as a dream, that all that is being conceived in the present is
like a flash of lightning, and that all that will be conceived in the
future will be like clouds that rise up suddenly.

There are no "wholes" in Buddhism. But are there, conventionally speaking?

Vasubandhu rejects both wholes and combined sets (whether cohesive or
merely contiguous). Wholes are rejected by appealing to the Buddhist
reductionist principle which says that only the component parts of an
entity are real (aggregated wholes, on this view, are not).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/
I was merely some things may be of the sort that could potentially be wholes, but never are: and so they are never complete. Is that the case, why, and if so, so what?

Take the canonical example of a chariot.
Does anyone say that the chariot is not ultimately real, but you can conventionally find the chariot in among its parts - that it has then itself as a part - meaning the chariot appears to be a whole: it is potentially but not actually as there is always more.

Please briefly clarify what is meant conceptually, and in what sense & context & object class(es), by wholes & complete

huh? i'm confused what you even mean, let alone how to clarify words @MH

Thank you for your kind comment; then conventional objective objects could be whole & complete, as could existential & undescribable things, although undescribable things would be undescribable by language, as mentioned by Dogen Daishi

Everything is work in progress (becoming)  except Nibbana (non-becoming) according to Buddhism.

is nirvana a thing?

is non-becoming is another becoming?

What is complete or whole?
A car which is not missing any parts is surely complete or whole, by convention.
Buddhism is not concerned about this. It is only concerned with the fact that the car, as a conditioned thing is impermanent, and also the car as a phenomena that is not self and not belonging to a self.
When your car becomes damaged or has problems, this causes you suffering. It's not because it became incomplete. It's because it is impermanent, and you assumed it as belonging to your-self.
Please see the River Sutta. Please also see this answer for the longer story of the red car.

that's just not true at all. there's lots of discussion on parts and wholes

@satirical_buddhist You could be more specific about which school of Buddhism you're asking about. You mentioned Dogen in the question; ruben2020's answer seems to be more based on the suttas, and soteriology not ontology.

hey sorrry, everyone @ChrisW i'm wastiung my life, apologies for that. see you

I think it's an observation or an axiom of Buddhism that things which are put together -- physically pieced together from components, and/or constructed in the mind -- they come apart again.
In this sense at least, things are not whole.
They are not permanent, they are subject to change -- and empty of "self", being "mere aggregates".
A thing might be complete though in another sense of the word "complete" -- not "finally constructed", but "finished", "undone" (deconstructed).
An action can be complete too -- finished, not continued -- "perfect" in the grammatical sense.
Arguably only what is not constructed (e.g. nibbana) is complete in being not subject to change.

I say "arguably", I think that various Buddhists over time made more and more of these "philosophical arguments" -- but the kind of statement I'm referencing here, about sankharas and nibbana, are mentioned even in the earliest tranche.
The last words of the Buddha were something like,

vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā”ti
Conditions fall apart. Persist with diligence.

I've also seen (and remember) that translated as,

All compound things are subject to decay.

Conversely the first words of the Buddha include the following which I think are relevent here because they point to the possibility of an action or an intention, an endeavour, being completed:

This is the noble truth of suffering.’ Such was the vision, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and light that arose in me regarding teachings not learned before from another. ‘This noble truth of suffering should be completely understood.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of suffering has been completely understood.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
‘This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the origin of suffering should be given up.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the origin of suffering has been given up.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
‘This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering should be realized.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering has been realized.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
‘This is the noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering should be developed.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering has been developed.’ Such was the vision, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and light that arose in me regarding teachings not learned before from another.

See also these suttas refencing a palmyra stump -- see also What is effluent? which I think is to do with the kind of mental habit or tendencies which keep people from finishing (or being finished) with things.

Arahat, once reached, means complete and Mahaparinibbana is the ultimate (comp)lete*, good householder. No use of seeking else, seeking of complete in the world. May good householder hurry up for it's gain, and such as philosophy will always be incomplete, a waste of time and effort, for the wise.

*while meaning of complete in it's use might fit, the real meaning doesn't as real (comp)lete isn't compound.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange or what ever world-binding trade, but for Completeness.]


text:
Shaolin Legandary Elders Great Power Comes with Great Responsibilty - Buddhism Zen
According to the Chinese History, subject refers are the 5 survivor of Shaolin legendary grand masters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bak_Mei
In history, Ng Mui was escaping from temple to temple while Bak Mei joined the military and lead the troop to kill/eliminate other shaolin Temple.
What if those 5 elderly grant masters put down status as Monk/Nun, join the military with righteous intention and good deed/win win term and condition with Emperor. In this case, path to Nirvana likely unable to achieve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_of_Kshitigarbha
"Until the hells are empty (of suffering beings), I will not become a Buddha."
(「地獄不空，誓不成佛。」)
The intention is to influence the Emperor/General to minimize the damages and at the same time not losing the Empire base on Buddhism teaching? By right those grand masters should equipped with Buddhism/Taoism super natural abilities then should not be difficult.?  If it doesn't work and disagreement from Emperor, then quit the military.
If influence to the emperor was success and damages was minimum say 50k killed instead of 500k. So it saved 90% lives and many of them inspired and follow grand master learning Buddhism. Then Buddhism get greater influence and follower multiples.
In this case, can the 50k person killed is waived from Bad Karma?
Those grand master should have high Buddhism wisdom power to influence and change ?
This might applicable to corporate working life now or politics world.

This sounds like it might be related to Trolley problem and its variants in Buddhist ethics and The buddhist dillema on lesser evil.

"Proper means" has nothing to do with the Buddha-Dhamma, good householder, as Shaolin hasn't. To call oneself Buddhas monk, yet not even serious in regard the precepts and dedicated to win and gain, actors for trade, is simply a thief. May no one get fooled by fools.
Wrong deeds stay wrong deeds, precepts are simple and no go, as well as kamma doesn't argue around.
But in regard whether a mass-murder could become a saint, Arahat, reaching Nibbana in present life: yes (as long as not killed mother, father or an Arahat). One may get familar with

Angulimala: A Murderer's Road to Sainthood, by Hellmuth Hecker (2007; 12pp./37KB)
A biography in the BPS's "Lives of the Disciples" series. A brief biography of Angulimala, the notorious bandit who was transformed by the Dhamma and eventually became an arahant.

Results of actions are still arising for Saints, but taken with ease, impersonal untouched by Arahts.
[Note that this isn't given for trade binding to the world, stacks, exchange... but for rekease from this wheel]

re-edit back my question. Those monk/nun must put down status as layman and of course with terms and condition - no killing of parent and other monks with Emperor else negotiation fail. In this case, it's difficult to reach Nirvana if join the force, that's why Bodhisattva that qualified to Nirvana was born to stay and help in Samsara and influence others to the path of Nirvana.

@Wayne97 The "Bodhisattva" doctrine is a feature of Mahayana, which Samana Johann may consider unorthodox. The "vinaya" (rules of discipline and etiquette for monks) may exist in forms (lineages) in different places; but people who are familiar with the Theravada Vinayana could find that difficult to reconcile with the behaviour of modern martial artists (demonstrating acrobatic prowess etc.). The first result I found from https://www.google.com/search?q=shaolin+vinaya was this discussion on Sutta Central.

@Wayne97 I think that that (i.e. "only focus on personal enlightenment") might what Mahayana would call "Hinayana" -- not "Theravada" (which means old or "senior", not "small", i.e. "the way of the elder monks", the word "Thera" meaning "senior monk"). See also this comment.

thanks Chris for the comment and guide.

Who helps by harming others? Who helps even by wandering on and feed on others? Cheer foolish ideas... Wrong stays wrong and harm, harm. Not a little can those thieves be regarded as offsprings of the Buddha but simple foolish heros for one day, supporter of a side and harmer of many for there foolish ways... End never, not even as Bodhisatta, had the Sublime Buddha any aspiration to stay and continue harm. Folktales...

@SamanaJohann  I am a Shaolin Wing Chun martial arts practitioner but still stuck at beginner and meditation level. I dont understand the title above or how to be true righteous, that's why i am asking. https://medium.com/wing-chun-kung-fu/ip-mans-code-of-conduct-49be0327637f  see ethics #9 and below link https://zenstudiespodcast.com/asoka-1/  .. It mentioned about righteous too if you studying about Buddhism Zen.

while stuck in level 1 learning rather than focus in fighting, i managed to learn new skill as below like usages of white noise, using natural resources to purify dirts/waters/sound/air . "Be Water" -by Bruce Lee. The idea came by instinct during meditation. https://allenpools-spas.com/blog/sound-flowing-water-soothes/?fbclid=IwAR21cF6jdoIcgB-4CJ7gIzi1CvZptWOHjk_2PhQi_wAVMPcnaL8Fks2SwNQ   https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MgyQ2qYVMOaqdqbbJasDDVJj_WCJZFdk/view?usp=sharing       Happy Learning here!


text:
How do Buddhists that think of karma figuratively do so about rebirth?
How do Buddhists that think of karma figuratively -- non literal -- not what is ordinarily meant -- do so about rebirth? They surely cannot believe rebirth is literal, so what exactly is it?
An answer from any perspective would be most welcome.

Among these Buddhists, however, this has led to the rejection not of
non-self but of rebirth. (Historically this response was not unknown
among East Asian Buddhists, and it is not rare among Western Buddhists
today.) The evidence that the Buddha himself accepted rebirth and
karma seems quite strong, however... this sort of ‘noble lie’ justification for the Buddha teaching a doctrine he does not accept fails in the face of the evidence that he also taught it to quite advanced monastics

Emphasis added
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/#KarReb
So I'm not asking what the Buddha thought - we don't actually know - or any specific historical Buddhists. I am just seeking clarity on how you think of rebirth without literal karma^ , pretty uninterested in its psychological / self justification aspect, thanks.
^

a causal relationship between action (karma) and ‘fruit’ (phala), the
latter being an experience of pleasure, pain or indifference for the
agent of the action

What do you mean by "figuratively" when applied to karma?

that the agent of the action experiences its karmic result @ruben2020 i'd guess

isn't that what's called "literal"?

The question isn't clear to me. The reference doesn't mention "figurative". The word "figurative" to me means, "metaphorical". If you're asking about people who think of karma "figuratively" or "metaphorically" -- what is "karma" a "metaphor" of? Can you quote anyone describing it as a metaphor? And I think you're saying that people who think of karma "figuratively" think of rebirth as "figurative" too. So you're asking for any explanation of a "figurative" understanding of karma and of rebirth? But excluding any "psychological" aspect??

it just means non-literal, if you look it up @ChrisW

"departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical"

theis is not the place to try and explain what 'metaphor' means, sorry

The first question I asked on this site was about "rebirth" and how to understand that: Is rebirth a delusional belief? That has 23 answers -- perhaps one of those helps to answer this question?

To help try clarify: maybe question is ~What do people who, instead of considering the traditional standard consideration that karma is a valid concept, instead consider karma to be figurative & metaphorical, what do those people consider rb to be, eg, do they consider rb to be figurative, metaphorical, delusional, etc; &, the question may be asking for replies based on the idea of rb having connection to karma; perhaps a modified version of this question could be asked as a metaquestion, since Buddhism is generally considered to include concepts of rb and of karma as being literally valid

You are looking at karma and rebirth as having two different perspectives - figurative/ metaphorical or literal.
There's another two ways to look at this - "there is a self" and "all phenomena is not self".
If there is a self, you would think that the person who committed some action, would experience its results.
If there is a self, this self would be reborn after death. Most people take consciousness to be the self i.e. the same consciousness that moves throughout one's life and then after death, continues in another body.
What if all phenomena is not self?
From the SN 12.17 (although this quote comes from here):

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)".

So, the Buddha taught karma, but he also taught anatta.
In AN 5.57 (below), the Buddha told us to think "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma", but this is only a soteriological tool, a skillful means, and not proof that there is a self.

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

And what about rebirth?
From MN 38:

As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true,
Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand
the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness
that runs and wanders on, not another'?"
"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed
One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not
another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to
the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the
Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
harm & suffering."

When it comes to rebirth, you must ask WHO or WHAT is reborn?
Is it the self? Is it consciousness? None of these are permanent even in one's life. They are impermanent, conditioned, dependently arising and ceasing. The self is just a mental idea. Please see this answer.
So what is reborn? Well, suffering is reborn, and the mental idea of the self is reborn.

I think of karma, seeds of karma, and fruits of karma as individual's action, latent effects of such action, and individual experience resulting from past action, correspondingly. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't read any unscientific mumbo-jumbo into these concepts, purely cause-and-effect.
I think of rebirth as a type of karmic process that spans multiple lifetimes. An action is performed in one life, its seeds remain latent after death, then in another life the effects of those actions influence, shape, and configure individual's background, environment, and therefore personality, in a certain way. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't read any unscientific mumbo-jumbo into these concepts, purely cause-and-effect.

'Kamma' means 'intentional action' therefore is never 'figurative'.
As for the word 'rebirth' meaning 'reincarnation', there appears no equivalent Pali word in the original scriptures. Therefore what is actually 'figurative' is the idea of a 'rebirth after the ending of life'.
In original Buddhism, the literal meaning of 'death' ('marana') & 'following from' ('upapajjati') appears to refer to types of egoism or self-views.
SN 12.2 defines 'death' as the death of 'a being'. SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 define 'a being' as a state of attachment; as a view.
In summary, because of attachment or self-view, kamma is performed; and because of attachment or self-view, results of kamma are reaped.

I don't know if you're familiar with psychology, but there's a theory there called the "Cycle of Violence", which holds that violent acts repeat themselves. They don't just repeat themselves within relationships — as each person in turn takes revenge or retribution for the other's violent behavior — but repeat across society as people turn their desire for retribution outward towards others.  They even repeat across generations, where those who are exposed to violent acts as children expose their own children to violence. Exposure to violence creates a kind of 'resonance' such that violence arises in us and exposes others.
Expanding this idea brings us to a non-reincarnation understanding of karma. Every attitude we present to the world — anger, joy, avarice, fear, stubbornness, vanity, peace, etc — impacts those around us. And like tuning forks, others resonate to our attitude, sympathetically or discordantly, outwards to others and back to us, so that the whole world (to some limited extent) rings like a bell to our attitude. Once we're caught in that resonance, that tone keeps coming back to our lives; as that tone spreads outward, others get caught in it, and that tone keeps coming back to their lives.
If we think of the 'self' as the confluence of those attitudes (the collection of frequencies we resonate at), then that 'self' is constantly reconstructing itself out of its own echoes. Even after a body dies, that self still constantly reconstructs itself in other bodies that have been caught in the resonance.
The dharma, thus, is to still those resonances we do not wish to reconstruct themselves. By not taking those attitudes, and not resonating to them when we are exposed to them in the world, by stilling the self, we pass on only what is universal and good, and that 'self' never reconstitutes itself.

If you assume no 'I' or '' mine', no rebirth.
If you assume 'I' or 'mine', rebirth makes sense.
The universe is empty, energy can only change forms. So for 'now', everywhere sums up to 0.
Flip 90 degrees, so for 'here' (I), everywhen sums up to 0.
This is kamma-vipaka. All action has entirely linear consequences overall. Good = good, bad = bad. This way, action can sum to 0.
But it is a lower truth - because it assumes an 'I', it is not worthy of monks, who must eschew all self concern.
An approximation, not unlike God as an approximation, except more accurate.

I think of rebirth as the end of a life, nothing more, with the caveat that the agent experiences the result.
I do not know how to unpack that tension into everyday language, but such is the middle, anyway.

Each word by itself makes sense, but together it reads as utter nonsense, sorry.

ha, well at least there's that then.


text:
Seeking a specific book on Buddhism
Back in the late 1980s I was in San Francisco on business. My hotel room had, of course, a Gideon Bible but surprisingly to me, it also had a book on Buddhism, I think it was called "The Way of the Buddha" but I'm not sure. It was put out, I believe, by an organization called something like The Buddhist Society of San Francisco.
I took and read it multiple time years later. It served as my really basic introduction to Buddhism and it led me down the path to discovering mindfulness meditation. Note, I don't consider myself a Buddhist now but I'm open to learning.
I'd like to find that book again. I'm not sure it was a Dhammapada but some googling suggests that it may be. I may be wrong but a Dhammapada sounds fairly scholarly, this book had an easy reading feel to it.  It did remind me some of a Christian Bible, containing stories about the Buddha.

My best guess: What the Buddha Taught, by Walpola Rahula. It's early enough (published in '59, and revised in '74), and is widely respected as an introductory text. If I were going to put something in a hotel drawer, that's what I'd choose.
Second guess: The Teaching of Buddha, a collection published by the Society for the Promotion of Buddhism. It is (apparently) extremely common to find these texts in hotels in Japan, but I'm not much of a traveler, so I can't speak to that, or to how far that practice might have spread internationally. But it is possible a translated edition made its way to San Francisco.

No, that's not it. I own it and have read it many times. It is the first book I bought on Buddhism.

Huhn. Well, I'm going to edit my post with a second guess I just discovered via google.

I'm pretty sure that "The Teaching of Buddha" is it. I downloaded it to my Kindle and just read the first 15 pages or so, through "The Last Teachings" and skimmed randomly through the book. It really does feel like the book I first picked up in San Francisco so many decades ago. Thanks!

Did some googling.
The Buddha Way
by Harper San Francisco
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-buddha-waya-folding-screen-book_harper-san-francisco/2596039/item/13174882/#isbn=0062511394&idiq=13174882
Is this it?

My book certainly didn't have illustrations.

"Wind Bell: Teachings from the San Francisco Zen Center - 1968-2001" maybe?

Wild guess: The Way of Zen, by Alan Watts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_of_Zen

I can't help you find that specific edition.
The Dhammapada can be an easy read. It's a collection of verses, they're a kind of (a partial summary of) Buddhist doctrine. There are several translations (on paper and online), including an example here. The Preface starts ...

The Dhammapada is the best known and most widely esteemed text in the Pali Tipitaka, the sacred scriptures of Theravada Buddhism.

... and the Introduction ...

From ancient times to the present, the Dhammapada has been regarded as the most succinct expression of the Buddha's teaching found in the Pali canon and the chief spiritual testament of early Buddhism.

I like it as a summary. It can be easy to understand at least superficially -- more difficult in detail as a first and only introduction, so it's often published with some introduction and explanatory commentary.
I once found a book too (as well as a Bible and a Koran): in a hotel room in Singapore. Not about "mindfulness meditation", this one was structured as a "Life of the Buddha" -- a biography or hagiography -- including some of the most important lessons or doctrines (things he said). I think there are several books (in English) like that.
In case you're interested there have had a lot of questions on this site, almost too many, asking for various book recommendations -- see here.

My book did not go into meditation at all, it just opened the door for research which lead to that. I also just picked up two Dhammapada's on amazon, I'll dive into them. Thanks for the encouragement!

@PaulCezanne Getting two is good : they are both translations and will convey the text differently. One may be more academic, another capture the poetry. Thomas Byrom manages that quite well while being very straighforward and easy to read.


text:
Is optimism and positive attitude counterproductive?
Many believe that it is important to avoid being negative and instead to see the good in bad situations. However, the Buddha said that good and bad are fabricated concepts that do not exist. An individual who has attained nirvana is neutral and does not experience emotions. Although a Bodhisattva is certainly not negative and pessimistic, they cannot be positive and optimistic either.
Would seeing the bright side of things in life impede me from making spiritual progress?

Good householder, optimism and positive attitude is counterproductive (in regard of long lasting happiness) if the objects are in the world, object of sense. Joy, optimism, positive attitude toward awakening, skillful deeds... called "pasada" and arising after Saddha, which arises after Dukkha, are very needed tools to gain piti and the rest of releasing path till highest liberation, the Ariya-path. In short, all optimism and positive attitude toward that of what is actually subject of decay isn't smart, nurishes causes for suffering.
Useful talk on things less known here: Affirming the Truths of the Heart: The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega & Pasada
May good householder have enough optimism and positive attitude to investigate here deeper and trust that it will be for his long term happiness.
Getting a human existance, meeting the Tripple Gems, go after it, such is indeed a bright life and it's actually cause, if meeting Dukkha together with the path for release, for highest happiness, Unbound. So one needs to rejoice actually with such a life, such a gain, meeting such possibilities, hard ever to meet.
Therefore mudita has to start with oneself (=anussati)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, worldbinding trades but toward release from it.]

Would seeing the bright side of things in life impede me from making
spiritual progress?

No it won't. But what do you mean by bright side ? If you mean to say that Buddha is the bright side then it wont impede you from making spiritual progress.

To be able to see good in bad and bad in good is called freedom from circumstances.

Optimism and positive attitude - is it counter productive in Buddhism?
It depends on what is its cause.
If it is caused by greed or lust, aversion and/or delusion, for e.g. you're happy because your craving for chocolate cake was fulfilled, or because the colleague you strongly dislike has resigned and will soon leave your workplace, then it is considered counter productive in Buddhism.
However, if you are optimistic and positive, due to reasons like the following, then it is considered skillful in Buddhism.
From the Dhammapada:

Happy indeed we live, friendly amidst the hostile. Amidst hostile men we dwell free from hatred.

Happy indeed we live, friendly amidst the afflicted (by craving). Amidst afflicted men we dwell free from affliction.

Happy indeed we live, free from avarice amidst the avaricious. Amidst the avaricious men we dwell free from avarice.

Happy indeed we live, we who possess nothing. Feeders on joy we shall be, like the Radiant Gods.

Dhammapada 200 refers to piti (rapture) of jhana.

Sometimes being optimistic is useful in particular situations, to help people.
Happy mind tends to be calm, with less vexations; and that helps to put efforts in helping sentient beings, instead of wasting our energy in self-centered vexations.
So it's not advisable to be over-excited with anything, or to attach to anything (because ultimately you can't keep what you are attached to, and so attachments lead to wasting our energy in suffering).
Also, attachments impair the scope of our view.
But if we practice optimism as calm, non-exciting way of living happily, then it helps to keep our perceptions open, unconstrained, and to understand things deeper.
That's why, for example, the practice of dana (giving) helps to develop prajna (wisdom): calm and happy mind is clear and sees well.
As for "not experiencing emotions in nirvana", that sentence can be easily misunderstood.
I would advise you to investigate where it comes from and what it actually means.
There are mistranslations and misconceptions about that even in books of some famous Buddhist teachers.
For example, Khyentse says that "All emotions are painful". However, that's true only for a very specific understanding of the term "emotions", not quite corresponding with what we consider to be emotions in our daily experience.
We can understand "emotions" as just feelings that carry useful signals. It's a part of our mental abilities, and there is nothing wrong with them.
Only when they become attached to, problems start to arise.
In nirvana — phenomena happen, including emotional phenomena; trying to "get rid of emotions" might be a wrong kind of practice.


text:
Tathagata and the seeker after knowledge!
Many ancient pali literature proposed the end or nirvana as 'tathagata got released'. What does it mean? Do tathagata is bound? Or Do we bound by ignorance and free with right knowledge(Samma Ditthi)?
Samma Ditthi at times coincides with Thou are that, upanishadic dictiom. Five aggregates are mere empty, like mirage of real caste on matter. But, when one gives up that which is not his, he lands onto mirage. And from that mirage he see Truth or who have samma ditthi.
Please any one could guide me in this regard!

One is bound with the bondage of craving, and the arahant has become released from this bondage, and become unbound.
From Iti 58:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "There are these three cravings. Which three? Craving for
sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. These are
the three cravings."
Bound with the bondage of craving,
their minds smitten
with becoming & non-,
they are bound with the bondage of Mara —
people with no safety from bondage,
beings going through the wandering-on,
headed for birth & death.
While those who've abandoned craving,
free from the craving for becoming & non-,
reaching the ending of fermentations,
though in the world,
have gone beyond.

The second noble truth says that the cause of suffering is craving.
But what's the relationship between craving and ignorance?
Have you heard of 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.
Knowing how the trap works, i.e. gaining insight and wisdom into the nature of reality, is the way to overcome ignorance.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)

The Upanishadic "That thou art" is unrelated to Buddhism, because it tells you that you are actually that eternal Self. In Buddhism, all phenomena is not self and the self, being a mental idea, is not eternal or permanent.

@sandeep_telang We can agree that the "I" that ceases is the little, personal "I". The "thou" in "thou are that" of the Upanishads is probably more closely correlated to the Infinite Consciousness of Buddhism. In SN46.54, the Buddha points beyond that consciousness:

SN46.54:14.6: The apex of the heart’s release by rejoicing is the dimension of infinite consciousness, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

Many ancient pali literature proposed the end or nirvana as 'tathagata
got released'. What does it mean? Do tathagata is bound? Or Do we
bound by ignorance and free with right knowledge(Samma Ditthi)?

World does not end with Tathagatas... world is impermanent... it rises , changes ,vanishes...With end of ignorance comes Nirvana.... And Ignorance of what ? Ignorance of Dhamma which says craving is the root cause of suffering and with cessation of craving comes cessation of suffering ....

Samma Ditthi at times coincides with Thou are that, upanishadic
dictiom. Five aggregates are mere empty, like mirage of real caste on
matter. But, when one gives up that which is not his, he lands onto
mirage. And from that mirage he see Truth or who have samma ditthi.

Thou are that means you are that...this is not what Buddha taught...and he does not lands onto mirage if he gives up what is his not...

@sandeeptelang you are twisting the meaning to suit your argument... this behaviour is not appropriate for gaining knowledge...

@sandeeptelang tathagatas are also like earth...

It says here, "Major Vedantic schools offer different interpretations of the phrase", and summarises seven of them. The Buddhist doctrine of "self" -- or non-self i.e. anatta or anatman -- may be distinct from other religions (though perhaps you like to see similarities or parallels). Also it's been said on this site that later Hinduism, especially Advaita, was influenced by or incorporated some Buddhist doctrine.

I've seen that metaphor before, in a (fictional) movie that was set in Tibet or Nepal -- Question: "How do you make a drop of water last forever?" -- Answer: "Put it in the ocean."

@ChrisW Myriads of views and interpretations won’t end the suffering ... better stick to what Buddha says... adopting some parts of Dhamma won’t solve the problem... Once a conclusion has been reached what benefit does it bring by counting how many intermediate theories we made ?

I think it's difficult to tell the OP that they are "twisting the meaning", when we don't know (because there are several interpretations from different schools) what he thought it meant to begin with. So maybe better just explain the Buddha-Dharma, and leave off discussing of the meaning of "Tat Tvam Asi".


text:
Whats happens after death?
When a human being dies, their body dissolves into other bodies, i.e., other humans, plants, air, water, rocks, sand, etc. But what really happens to our

Consciousness
memory
thoughts
intelligence &
Karma

Your thoughts, memory, intelligence and karma continue to live on in the world after you, in some form or the other.
People still remember the Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman and other famous people in history and still read their writings or listen to to their speeches or admire their statues or portraits, or be inspired by their stories.
After you are gone, your family members, friends and acquaintances continue to remember what you taught them or impressed upon them.
It is for this reason that the Buddha praised the setting up of the stupas of the Buddha, arahats, wheel-turning monarchs and other such great people, in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, as memorials to continue inspiring the people.

If good householder wouldn't not have desire for another becoming and certain inclination,, he wouldn't have come here, or? So after dying off elsewhere, lack of satisfaction, breaking apart there, desire for not-becoming, he became another time, in this realm, not sure of what he will meet, but dying of another time here is for sure. But if he gains awakening here, understanding the way it is, arises, decays, he will no more take birth, no more ignorance, not-knowing, no more craving for becoming anywhere another time.
Birth is taken, where ever possible and fit for once inclination, if not having gained full awakening, good householder. Bhava (becoming)-mind arises for beings after the break up of the Body. Why? Because of Tanha (thirst, craving) based on not-knowing, ignorance, Avija. The sequence in detail, of the wheel of wandering, on is given generously by the Sublime Buddha in the secound Noble Truth. What ever takes Birth is subject to decay, suffering.
May good householder had a good blessed, even last birth, here.
Some words might be of additional support for understanding: Why beings take birth, even in most worse existences and circumstances?
[Note that this isn't given for wandering on, stacks, exchange, trades for it, but for release from this wheel]

When a human being dies, his body dissolves into other bodies, i.e
other humans, plants, air, water, rocks, sand etc. But what really
happens to our    1   Consciousness   2   memory  3   thoughts    4   intelligence
&     5   Karma.

Consciousness is impermanent... It arises , is subject to changes and can vanish ...
Memory is impermanent too... thoughts are impermanent... intelligence is impermanent... karma is impermanent... it arises , is subject to change and can vanish .... I am none of those ... none of those belong to me ... none of those is myself ...
(Form or body is also impermanent)

Perhaps some understanding of Dependent Origination may some help.
ie:- Vinnana Paccaya Namarupa

Namarupa Paccaya Vinnana

In other words, even if your body is dissolved your vinnana (re-birth making consciousness or Patisandi Vinnana) is still there to create another body (Nama-rupa).

Here is how one can think about it;

What was before our being percepient in dependence on the physical body is unknown to us. (What haøpened before birth)
What will be after the breakup of the body in dependence on which we are percepient is unknown to us (what will happen after death)

Both unknowns are semantically equal.
What we know is that after an unknown percipience came to be. So we know that the unknown sometimes preceed percipience.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that it will happen again but in another body.
We don't here know the cause for the arising of our percipience but we assume that it will likely come into play again.


text:
Listening to music while meditating
I listen to a very low background score on a meditation app called Calm while meditating. It's mostly non-obstructive and really helps me get into the space of calm.
Where I live, silence of the outer world is hard to come by and I mostly use the music just to combat that.
Should I not be listening to music while meditating?
Does the Buddha have any words in this regard?

Metta & Chai to all,
Kalpesh

No, you should not listen to music. The Buddha states that you must be secluded from sensuality.                                                                     "There is the case where a monk—quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities—enters & remains in the first jhāna... " - Excerpt from SN 45:8

it seems to have been effective for the Asker, according to the information provided in the question, and would seem to be less noticeable than, eg, viewing stage productions & singing & dancing, especially if the musical material has become very familiar after having been heard many times

Listening to music, among other liminally conscious activities, like scribbling or tapping a pencil while listening to a lecture in class, are ways of distracting one’s attention from other more disturbing phenomena such as street noise, but the goal of meditation is to focus the mind, not distract it. I suggest that buying some industrial grade earplugs (not the foam kind) would be more beneficial to your practice than listening to music.

Nice answer; also, if could explain why consider focus would be considered the goal of contemplation. Thank you.

In the beginning, an untrained mind is like a wild stallion—it must be broken before it can be trained.

That is an interesting point of view; if could please amplify a bit, as would be interested as to why 'focus' would be intended or sought (rather than enquiring re training method); Thank you for your kind comment.

Why is it an interesting point of view? The most widely heard excuse for not meditating is “I can’t sit still,” followed by “My mind is always occupied with too many things.” The modern word “multitasking” has been repurposed to put a positive spin to the state of mind formerly called “distracted,” but it’s still just a state in which attention is jumping around like a wild stallion. That is why I say to beginning meditators that they need to learn to focus their mind. They can’t undertake any kind of inquiry if they can’t focus on the process. Meditating with a support has that goal. ☺

Thank you for the additional comment & information(firstly, had missed prancing idea, & would more gently train a great steed, to preserve its spirit,& similarly for training people) re 'focusing': then, it's attempt to replace several things(distracted, oblivious,etc) with one thing,Thank you, because it seems quite widespread as the goal in new age meditationing, & your explanation is very clear;There seems little mentioned past it, & it's construed very variously, & from there it sort of goes to existential concepts,which recently are often rejected as figurative or delusional. Thank you :)

Thank you for expanding the question

it must be broken I know that's just using a simile, but I know a literal horse-trainer who thinks that doctrine/method/assumption is wrong -- saying that horses should be understood and not intimidated, that if you learn (to speak) their body-language they will begin to follow/approach you in the lunging ring (when you turn your back on them). After they do that then you can gradually begin to do things, gently, like introduce a neck-rope, a saddle-blanket, a halter, a saddle.

The buddha said that sound is a thorn for mediation https://suttacentral.net/an10.72/en/sujato
More generally, the idea that right meditation is the focus on object of the senses is from the commentators from their lack of yoniso manasikara, ie ''right thinking''. and their ideas taken from the hindus  that mantras, the sound Om and so on, can get you into right concentration. When theyadmit that, they say that focusing on the objects of the senses is just the temporary  training to get good at concentration , and then the next step is to get into meditation through non nimittas (ie images).
yoniso manasikara is the way to get into right samadhi, ie doing all the 7 things listed before right samadhi in the 8 fold path. Puthujjanas crave sense objects too much for that so they made up the idea they can get enlightened by focusing on them.

Meditating with music is inadvisable:

AN8.41:8.1: ‘As long as they live, the perfected ones give up dancing, singing, music, and seeing shows; and beautifying and adorning themselves with garlands, fragrance, and makeup.

However, if the mind needs a focus, it may be helpful to consider the third opportunity for freedom:

AN5.26:4.1: Furthermore, it may be that neither the Teacher nor … the mendicant teaches Dhamma. But the mendicant recites the teaching in detail as they learned and memorized it. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how they recite it in detail as they learned and memorized it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the third opportunity for freedom. …

And how does one recite the teaching? Well, an easy way to do that is to simply listen to a sutta repeatedly until it flows off the tongue on its own. Sutta recordings can be found on the internet. For example, voice.suttacentral.net has 4000 suttas in various languages (Pali, English, etc.).
Ultimately, one should ideally be content simply focusing on the breath.

MN10:4.2: It’s when a mendicant—gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut—sits down cross-legged, with their body straight, and focuses their mindfulness right there. Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out.

In the above, "right there" is an instruction to be aware of what is happening at that moment without any grasping attachment. The breath is observed right there in the moment, in the body as it enters and exits. More detailed instruction is found in studying MN10. However, in general, using music to mask agitation is inadvisable. Rather, attend to the breath and the mind will necessarily relax from agitation. The "music" of the breath itself should suffice.

Nice answer; also, if could amplify the intended literal meanings of the words of the MN10.1.1 quote provided above would be appreciated; a mendicant, wilderness, tree root, empty hut, focuses, mindfulness, right[where [?]], mindful, just breathe in, & just breath out; re posture, & the overall suggestion seems quite clear; Thank you.

Thank you. Added clarification "right there".

Excellent; Thank you :)

From what I have learned , I think you should meditate alone at secluded places. Buddha has repeatedly said employ “empty” huts to meditate ...  you should avoid the noise of city and music for better meditation.

How would one do that if one wants to practise every day and live in a home in a city? :)

@KalpeshMange Serious Monks do it that way. For householder I think it would be wise to remember 4 Nobel Truths at all times, in success in failure , while mourning while celebrating. The truths will automatically develop deep compassion in you for fellow beings...

I’d suggest you to meditate in a quiet environment. It’s more relaxing for the ears, and then the mind. It also enables you to face yourself in silence and might help you realize the emptiness of things...
If you really want to have some chilling music in the background to help you relax at the beginning of your meditation it’s not bad per se but don’t become dependent on that and remember that doing it in silence might prove more effective and train you to be more comfortable in your ability to face the daily grind on your own...
After all, learning to be in tune with oneself also takes time and practice
:)

How would one do that if one wants to practise every day and live in a home in a city that's noisy? :)

It’s all about personal choices. You may try and succeed. Try before anything else though. It may also be that you can’t have your cake and eat it... So Choose your direction accordingly and pick what is most important for you. After all, men are not trees. ;) Good luck on your personal journey :)

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

A monk endowed with these five qualities is incapable of entering & remaining in right concentration. Which five? He cannot withstand (the impact of) sights, he cannot withstand sounds... aromas... tastes... tactile sensations. A monk endowed with these five qualities is not capable of entering & remaining in right concentration.
A monk endowed with these five qualities is capable of entering & remaining in right concentration. Which five? He can withstand (the impact of) sights... sounds... aromas... tastes... tactile sensations. A monk endowed with these five qualities is capable of entering & remaining in right concentration.
— AN 5.113

[Not given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades, but for release from this wheel]