text:
Body scan guided meditation that covers only the upper body?
I'm not certain if this is the right place to ask this question so let me know if I need to try a different forum.
Does anyone know of a guided body scan that only covers the upper body? My partner is paraplegic and is trying meditation for the first time. It could be really good for her. But the first words were "feel your feet on the floor". She tried to stick with it, but it was just too much. I know meditation sometimes means you sit with discomfort, but that is way too much pain and way too early in her trying meditation.
So, if anybody knows of such a body scan from the waist up - please let me know.
Also
Many thanks,
Kim

I have not heard of a meditation only practice in the upper body. However, breath meditation practice in conjunction with the stomach so they may consider upper body experience.

Just modify the instructions accordingly. A proper body scan just involves probing and examining the kinaesthetic response from every cell your body, not just the skin, but internal organs and everything in between. You don't have to start with the feet or the head, you can start wherever you feel like, can stay as long as you want. But the more you can pervade your awareness to every cell in the body, the better results you're going to get in your meditation practice. The longer you work at it, years and decades, if you're serious about your practice and dedicate several hours a day to it, energy channels will open up and it will feel like you can sense every cell in body, even all of them simultaneously.

I guess I could record a modified one for her. But, asking a paralyzed person to be aware of their paralyzed parts? That just isn't going to happen. To ask a new meditator to do it? That's just cruel. Internal organs are paralyzed too. It would be like cutting off an able-bodied persons leg, moving it 10 feet away, and asking them to sense every cell in it. I'm sure I don't fully understand it being able-bodied myself, but living with her I've learned that being paralyzed is so much more than just not being to stand up.

it's not a requirement that one has to produce a tangible sensation upon probing any cell in the body to be considered successful, or doing it 'properly'. One simply has to scan a cell, a small piece of body, and just detect whether there is any sensation there.


text:
Call of duty during a Dharmic war : a Buddhist perspective
For a good Buddhist , is to always avoid any cause that will create bad effect, as we can see clearly in the 4 noble truths for example.
What is the Buddhist perspective during an hypotetic moment of tension ,  where antagonist religions that serve a demiurgic  god for temporal power  or maybe from a blind communist regime ,  will decide to  manipulate and force pratictioners to not follow the Dharma anymore , closing monasteries , destroying sources , texts and deport and killing people in the name of an evil faith? (Look for example what the christians did in Europe in the last 1000 years or the muslim in the Kashmir region, chinese in Tibet and Jews in Palestine)
Fight or get killed?
I would like to have direct answers , not political nor mellifuous / hypocrite one.

I think this is an exact duplicate of a previous question, already answered (so I closed this one, and people can add answers to the previous one if they want to). If you think this question is a different question from the previous one (and therefore ought to be reopened) please clarify what's different about this one, what is this one asking that the previous one isn't.

While violence and destruction is strongly discouraged in Buddhism, it is ok for a ruler or government of a country that adheres to Buddhist principles, to establish police and armed forces to:

protect and guard the people
ensure peace
ensure that justice prevails

Please see Pali sutta quotes below.
However, what about the hypothetical case of Buddhists being persecuted in non-Buddhist lands? Buddhists in this case, should not bear arms and become freedom fighters or terrorists, as that is against the first precept and also other teachings e.g. removing mental aversion.
In this case, persecuted Buddhists should either leave the country (as what the 14th Dalai Lama had done in March 1959) or pursue peaceful legal means of action (as what Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King had done) which could include petitions and letters to government officials and elected representatives, statements on media etc.
From DN 16:

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

From DN 26:

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

great answer! thank you!

This is a good question and I pondered on this too. My conclusion is that it is not possible for invaders to concur with a Dhammic nation. Perhaps Tibet was concurred due to the drawbacks of the Mahayana religion. Perhaps in China, they persecuted the Muslims due to the drawbacks of Islam. (By the way, I am not endorsing any of these) If we follow true Buddhism, nobody can concur with us. According to my present understanding of Dhamma, nobody will be able to shake my faith. But I am not sure whether I will be able to pass that to the future generation.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can a puthujjana have unshakable faith in the Buddha-Dhamma?
I read the following on the internet:

According to my present understanding of Dhamma, nobody will be able
to shake my faith.

Can a puthujjana (unenlightened commoner still immersed in self instinct) have unshakable faith in the Buddha-Dhamma?
What happens if a puthujjana does a meditation retreat and freaks out when in solitude or experiencing ego-death?
What are the conditions or criteria for unshakable faith (acalā saddha)?

As I know, A person need to be sotapanna in order to have unshakable faith. Because he don't have vichikichcha.

Right view arises with two conditions:

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.  What two? The words of another and proper attention.  These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.”

Unshakeable faith happens thus:

MN106:13.3: But sir, what is noble liberation?”  “Ananda, it’s when a mendicant reflects like this: ‘Sensual pleasures in this life and in lives to come, sensual perceptions in this life and in lives to come, visions in this life and in lives to come, perceptions of visions in this life and in lives to come, perceptions of the imperturbable, perceptions of the dimension of nothingness, perceptions of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; that is identity as far as identity extends. This is the deathless, namely the liberation of the mind through not grasping.

Importantly, "perceptions of the imperturbable" are also identity and to be relinquished without grasping. So declaring "I am imperturbable" misses the mark. Better to just walk while walking and just stand while standing.
Decades ago I went to a retreat, perceived non-self and freaked out. That was definitely unpleasant, but it was an important clue about the Noble Truths. It's taken a lifetime to muster proper attention and find the words of another. With proper attention and the words of another, one can have faith that the Noble Eightfold Path will give rise to unshakeable faith upon release from all the fetters.

This question is well answered by MN 27 and the commentary of its translator, Ven. Thanissaro.
According to the sutta, the one who attains the four jhanas, the knowledge of past lives/ abodes recollection and the knowledge of beings passing away and reappearing, is not yet able to come to the conclusion (i.e. have unshakable faith, or have no doubt at all) regarding the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha:

"This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathagata, a scratch mark of
the Tathagata, a tusk slash of the Tathagata, but a disciple of the
noble ones would not yet come to the conclusion, 'The Blessed One is
rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One;
the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has practiced rightly.'

However, the sutta continues:

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of
the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to
be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This
is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation
of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination
of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is
the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.'
"This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathagata, a scratch mark of
the Tathagata, a tusk slash of the Tathagata. A disciple of the noble
ones has not yet come to conclusion, but he comes to the conclusion,
'The Blessed One is rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught
by the Blessed One; the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has
practiced rightly.'

So, when he fully understands the four noble truths, only then does he come to the conclusion (i.e. have unshakable faith, or have no doubt at all) regarding the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. But he himself has not yet come to a conclusion, i.e. he is not yet an Arahant.
So, what is his attainment at this stage?
Ven. Thanissaro, the translator, comments:

This stage in the practice would seem to correspond to reaching
stream-entry, inasmuch as one of the standard definitions of
stream-entry is direct vision of the four noble truths. It is also the
stage at which one reaches unwavering conviction in the Buddha,
Dhamma, and Sangha.
The sentence stating that the stream-enterer has come to a conclusion
without coming to conclusion is a play on words. The idiomatic
expression for coming to a conclusion — ni.t.tha.m gacchati — can also
mean coming to a finish, reaching completion, or coming to an end. To
distinguish these two meanings, the text here uses the form
ni.t.tha.ngato to mean having come to a finish, and ni.t.tha.m
gacchati to mean coming to a conclusion.

That means only the one who has gained stream entry could have unshakable faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha.
Then the sutta goes on to describe the Arahant (who comes to a conclusion):

"His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the
fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the
fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge,
'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
"This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathagata, a scratch mark of
the Tathagata, a tusk slash of the Tathagata, and it is here that a
disciple of the noble ones has come to conclusion: 'The Blessed One is
rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One;
the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has practiced rightly.'"

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


text:
Miracles of Gautama Buddha

Following his enlightenment, the Buddha was said to have possessed and
discussed several supranormal powers attainable through meditation.
Such abilities include walking on water, walking through walls,
becoming invisible, levitation, and making copies of himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha
Just a doubt how could the abilities above is possible? Any details or proof on it especially walking through walls or becoming invisible. Sound like a magic?

@mh just try to create some interests here and prepare to answer if someone challenges this :D

thank you for your good question & nice comment; was editing
the comment & deleted because the 4 minute timelimit for editing had passed; it went something like this: Good interesting question cf. simply dismissing the concept as is seen recently quite often in new age type material thats marketed as Buddhism; also mentioned that 1 question can have up to 5 appropriate tags on it. Thank you  :)

yes, its Part of Buddhism :)

maybe could continue preparation in B.SE cht room 'Buddhism1', the ping doesnt seem to work to invite littlestar, and its a public cht room :)

You wrote, "just try to create some interests here and prepare to answer if someone challenges this" -- so I assume this is like your previous question, where you're looking for how to answer if a skeptical evangelical challenges the belief as being incredible.
Incidentally I asked a similar question about "rebirth" -- Is rebirth a delusional belief? -- not because the doctrine of rebirth is necessarily the first or most important thing to know about Buddhist doctrine, but because I thought it was one of the most famous aspects and difficult to understand, and so a reason why people might reject or not investigate the whole doctrine.
Anyway if you are asked about miracles, one way to answer might be by referencing the Kevatta or Kevaddha Sutta (DN 11).
First read for yourself the text of that sutta.
Then maybe read this answer which says, "most Buddhists [...] believe in the miracles mentioned in the scriptures literally" -- I think that the author (Sankha Kulathantille) saying "most Buddhists" means "in Sri Lanka" for example.
I think that (i.e. literally") is certainly one way to understand the sutta.
But perhaps also read what Piya Tan writes about DN 11 here (Piya Tan is a former monk, from Malaysia/Singapore/Thailand).

This discourse belongs to a rare category of religious literature: religious humour,
of which it is
one of the finest examples. Its import is nonetheless serious in terms of reflecting the true nature of
religion and of spiritual development. The discourse clearly does not advocate any feeling of awe towards
an inexplicably mysterious universe [etc]

There's a partial answer to your question in part 3:

3. The Buddhist attitude to miracles
3.1 MIRACLES ARE NOT A MARK OF SPIRITUALITY. Midway through the Kevaḍḍha Sutta, the Buddha expresses to Kevaḍḍha his disapproval of miracles or psychic wonders (pāṭihāriya), especially the
wonder of miraculos power (iddhi,pāṭihāriya) [§§4-5] and of mind-reading (ādesana,pāṭihāriya) [§§6-7].
In fact, the Buddha disapproves of them in the strongest terms, using the well known stock phrase or formula, “I am troubled, ashamed, disgusted” (aṭṭiyāmi harāyāmi jigucchāmi).
Apparently, this is the
only time in the Suttas that we find the Buddha doing so in these words.
However, the Vinaya, too, records his unequivocal disapproval of such a display, in the story of Piṇḍola Bhāra,dvāja.
In the Kevaḍḍha Sutta, the Buddha first defines the miracle [§§4, 6], and goes on to mention the reaction of one with faith and one without faith regarding it. The one who has faith in the miracle speaks of
it to an unbeliever, who is unimpressed, claiming that in the case of the wonder of miraculous power (or
thaumaturgy), he knows of the Gandhāri charm [§5], and in the case of mind-reading, he knows of the
Manika charm [§7].
In a contemporary or a futuristic scenario, this can be explained in this way. The unbeliever sees no
special merit in the talk of psychic power because it could be done with, say, holographic images, airplanes, antigravity devices, etc; nor any the merit in the talk of mind-reading because this could be done
by a mind-imaging machine. Or, as Luis O Gomez puts it: “they are not the exclusive property of the
enlightened, or other people could come into possession of these powers by other means, such as the
magical arts of Gandhāra (gandhārī nāma vijjā)” (1977:221). It should be added that, as pointed out in
the Susīma Sutta (S 12.70), there are also arhats who do not possess any psychic power,
and that their
spiritual status is in no way inferior to any other arhat.

I realise this doesn't exactly answer your question -- but I think it's a canonical answer, i.e. it's what the canon says about the topic, i.e. that it's like of the wrong question to be asking, the wrong topic to be interested in when you're asking about Buddhism.
Piya Tan's article then goes on, to say what a miracle is (i.e. how it's defined in the sutta), and to say what the Vinaya says about them.
It may be incidentally that your Christian evangelical friends seem to show a "black and white" kind of thinking, e.g. "either you believe or you don't", or, "either it's the work of God or the work of the Devil". Personally I suppose that "believing in miracles" is a kind of an "extreme", and "not believing in miracles" is another extreme -- Buddhism often offers a "middle way" between extremes, avoid either extreme, so maybe both of these two extremes aren't exactly right. By the same token though I don't want to say someone is wrong for believing or for not believing.
Similarly I think that "interpreting every sutta literally" might be a bit of an extreme (and "not believing what the suttas says" another kind of extreme). It seems to me that some suttas -- for example DN 27 -- is pretty clearly something I'm inclined to recognise as a parable or allegory.
You might find it informative to read the answers to this topic too -- Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories?

skeptical evangelical challenges --> not exactly from Christian friend but from any friend especially very Junior Buddhist, and hope i can answer some simple questions. I am always wish to embrace Buddhism teaching

about the black and white -> i felt is identical to Buddhism. Do good then go heaven, do bad then go to hell. Believe in God but against all God's commandments going to black place also. No such things Do Bad Joins The "Good Worlds" ,Hurts and Kill all of them, if so that is not a "Heaven" and i am not interested to go there.

Just a doubt how could the abilities above is possible? Any details or proof on it especially walking through walls or becoming invisible. Sound like a magic?

Technically speaking, all those things mentioned above can easily be done if one's penetrated the extra-dimensions beyond our conventional dimensions. The concept is very similar to the flat-landers analogy explained by Dr. Carl Sagan.

thank you for posting your excellent explanatory reply & sharing the superb classic link with very nice indirect discussion of aspects of >3 Dimensional things/ extraDimensional things, including 'things' which may 'exist' but which are essentially directly in general noncomprehensible to, & directly in general nondescribable by, typical 3 Dimensional type beings, eg people/ tigers/ birds; thank you  :)

Thanks @MH  /\


text:
Is there a higher alaya in Vajrayana?
Is there a higher alaya in mahamudra that is separate from the lower alaya the vijnana skandha?

Is there a higher alaya in mahamudra that is separate from the lower alaya the vijnana skandha?

Vajrayana is a term used to denote Tantric Buddhist schools.
Practitioners of those schools might have somehow different views.
For example, Gelugpa School is based on teachings of Atisha, who was a legendary teacher of 11th century, famous due to his outstanding practitioner's skills, modest and kind personality, and deep understanding of unity of Buddhist Sutric and Tantric teachings.
Atisha wrote a "Lamrim" ("Steps of the Path"), explaining all the Buddhist theory and practice, including Tantric practice, as a unified system.
Later Tsongkhapa based his larger treatise on Atisha's works.
According to their views, Tantric Buddhism means using specific (Tantric) methods for realization of usual (Sutric) concepts.
So in terms of teachings, there is no essential difference between Tantrayana and "Sutric" Mahayana.
Mahamudra is just practical realization of the wisdom of emptiness, expounded by Mahayana teachers such as Buddha Shakyamuni, Vimalakirti, Nagarjuna etc. In Mahayana, those teachings are classified as "Maha Prajnaparamita" class teachings, i.e. teachings about The Great Perfection of Wisdom. They include "Vimalakirti sutra", "Diamond sutra", "Heart sutra" etc.
Madhyamaka school, stemming from Nagarjuna works, is the most focused on prajna paramita teachings.
The model of Eight consciousnesses, where Alaya vijnana is the eighth, is considered belonging to the Vijnanavada school. See "Lankavatara sutra".
Though there were Buddhist teachers criticizing Vijnanavada views, e.g. Chandrakirti, their criticism actually does not refute Vijnanavada views; only primitive ways to understand Vijnanavada views.
So both Vijnanavada and Madhyamaka views are useful and are studied in some Vajrayana schools.
I don't know any specific interpretations of Alaya vijnana by any Vajrayana teachers which would differ from views of those Mahayana schools.
There are some practitioners who would deny the unity of Sutra and Tantra, and could even claim that "Sutric Buddhism" is inferior, but upon investigation such views never hold water.
Such views actually come from lack of prajna, from absolutization of notions, for example, categorizing Buddhism into different parts and levels. Such categorizations are just concepts, relatively true in particular regards and particular limits, nothing more.
So those people may claim that they represent, for example, Nyingma school views, or even something that goes beyond the limits of Buddhism (Dzogchen), but in fact "Sutric" Buddhism is well aware of limits of words and concepts, and goes beyond them itself.
As far as I know, Padmasambhava, from whose teachings and activities Nyingma school has developed, did not contradict or modify usual Mahayana teachings.
With all that in mind, my answer is:
I don't know of any ideas of "higher alaya separate from the lower alaya".
That would be a strange idea, because the concept of alaya represents the highest level of inseparability and non-conceptualization.
Let's examine your expression, "the lower alaya the vijnana skandha".
Vijnana skandha is a concept that describes the reactive nature of mind.
We can talk about my personal mind, your mind, and minds of other beings. Also, we can notice that all things in the material world exhibit the quality of reactivity. We could generalize and say that all the world has a nature of reactivity, and it goes beyond and in between of sentient beings. In other words, reactivity does not belong only to sentient beings, but it's a nature of everything.
We can see everything as reacting and happening beyond limits of individual minds. Thus the notion of the all-encompassing, universal mind, alaya, can be roughly understood.
But it's just our notion. We take various phenomena, we group them and create notions. That's how our notion of mind appears, for example.
In the direct perception there is no "mind". The mind, or consciousness, is a concept created by dualities like perceived and perceiving.
Trying to liberate our minds from the slavery of absolutized notions, we can try to see our concepts as relative. We can say that in the original perception phenomena just appear; they aren't divided into the perceiving and the perceived.
That original non-divided phenomena can be viewed as the reactive space, and conceptualized as vijnana skandha or Alaya.
But there is no actual "vijnana skandha" or "Alaya" in the original direct perception; those terms are concepts or images we use to understand.
The actual reality isn't grasped by such concepts, or any other concepts; concepts are, in the best case, pointers at the experience.
So we use terms like "vijnana skandha" and "Alaya" in order to get close to the truth, but they never actually encompass it.
It's like using items on your boat in order to point at something in the surrounding ocean; they don't actually exist there in the ocean.
So speaking about some higher alaya or higher vijnana would be like trying to add more things to the things that can't capture the ocean.
Our items on the boat can't capture the ocean, and if we therefore try to add more such things, it's of no benefit.
To get closer to the truth we should instead try to grasp how concepts are relative; how pointers at the reality aren't what they point at.
Then we could understand and use concepts properly, and manifest Mahamudra in practice.


text:
Mind in meditation
Mind operates by thinking  and automatically. Can see this when  let go of thinking .Is it the two layers of mind as superficial  and deep?

Your question is unclear. What is "thinking and automatically"? What are the "two layers of mind"? Is that something Buddhist? What do you experience when you let go of thinking?

When let go of thinking  automatically breathing  happens.

"Nimitta" appears spontaneously but not very clear. My teacher was passed away  so I don't  have a teacher  to get advice.

The Nimitta is a natural byproduct of a concentrated mind moving towards unification.

If you're coming at this from the Yogacara or Zen schools, then absolutely.  What you are experiencing is absolutely correct.  There is the manas-vijnana or the thinking/superficial mind that sits on top of the klista-manas (or self-making consciousness) and the alaya vijnana or store house consciousness.  The manas-vijnana is a street that runs both ways.  While it is readily influenced by deeper consciousness, we can use the thinking mind or manas to influence the lower consciousness (this is called perfuming the seeds).
The real meat of Zen practice is the eradication the personal alaya and klista.
This is done by suspending the manas vijnana through samadhi so we can access and work with the deeper layers of consciousness.  When we suspend the thinking mind, the deeper layers begin to percolate up under their own energy.  These thoughts will seem completely random to us - and, like you say, automatic - and can be comprised of memories, emotion, and some other really crazy stuff.  The klista and the alaya speak a language that is different from the manas, and is instead common to dreams, myth, koans, etc.  It is up to us to leverage emptiness, or mushin, to penetrate into what they represent, how they impact us, and their root causes.  Bit by bit, we uproot these deep seated (seeded) causes of our ignorance and move closer and closer to enlightenment.
The nimitta is really just the mind experiencing the absence of the manas.  It is marked by emptiness and a certain amount of stability.  If it is unstable, there is something about your practice that is unstable.  This could be anything from subtle volitions of the manas, movement of the body, any of the five hinderances, etc.  What's troubling you is really a personal matter that is ultimately only discoverable through mindfulness.  A teacher is your best option, but it may also be helpful to read some books on common meditation obstacles after you sit to see if anything resonates with your experiences on the cushion.

Can the mind watch the mind?
Yes.
For example, try counting your breaths. If you lose count, your mind has wandered and your mind knows that it has wandered. That is the value of counting breaths. Counting breaths requires the mind. And mindfulness requires recall. Therefore, recall is the mind's test of mindfulness.

DN34:2.1.20: Furthermore, a mendicant is mindful. They have utmost mindfulness and alertness, and can remember and recall what was said and done long ago.

With practice, one might notice that recall can happen without thinking. So mind is more than thoughts.


text:
Ghost or horror stories/videos are appropriate during Pandemic moment?
There are more and more horror movie during pandemic and tension moment. Hong Kong is one of the example before riots recently.
Pretty much of productions of horror or ghost movie produced because the audience just like to watch especially they are in horror state as when there is a demand, then it will have the supply.
Source - Protest in 2019 HK
Below are some reasons why some people enjoy and what happens when watching a scary movie from Psychology view:

Horror entertainment can trigger the fight-or-flight response, which comes with a boost in adrenaline, endorphins, and dopamine. The brain can then process surroundings and conclude that the experience is not a genuine threat.

Below are some causes and effects of watching a scary movie:

Excitation transfer: This theory states that people who experience an emotional response to horror also experience more enjoyment when threats are resolved.

Individual empathy: People who are less empathetic enjoy horror films more, according to Professor Ron Tamborini. He suggests that “viewers with high levels of empathy should dislike horror films because they react negatively to the suffering of others.”

Sensation-seeking: People who watch horror movies may want to stimulate sensory reactions. Studies indicate these viewers may be more aggressive than other people.

Source of Reference - Concordia University
Ques Ghost or horror stories/videos are appropriate from Buddhism view? As people like to watch now during pandemic to have temporary relief and feel good? Even some Buddhism stories itself talks about Ghost realms but it will give a bring back positive message.
Post note - one or 2 horror must watch in a decade should fine like train to Busan right? but not during pandemic and I know I am far from enlightenment too.

I can understand "Buddhism related ghost or horror stories/videos" - it's where Buddhism-related characters like the Amitabha Buddha or Kuan Yin appear as characters, right? But what are "appropriate Buddhism related ghost or horror stories/videos"? What makes them appropriate? Perhaps, we should even ask if ghost or horror stories/videos are appropriate at all, from a Buddhist perspective.

I tried to edit @ruben2020 brother. You may edit or change the content or even close it if it is not appropriate. I tried to post another quality ques next time." Amitabha Buddha or Kuan Yin appear as characters, right" --> i think you are talking something between Theravada and Mahayana different way of teaching right? I will get back to you in the chat box some day soon.

Ghost and horror stories are thrill-seeking venues, not much different from a roller-coaster or bungie-jump. The egoic mind seeks them out because it suffers from an existential fear of extinction. The story creates a fantasy in which the hero confronts a murderous supernatural force and then escapes or overcomes it (for the moment), even while that force decimates the ignorant, the disbelievers, and the morally weak.
In a way — and with full appreciation of the irony — horror stories are how the egoic mind (mis)interprets the concept of enlightenment: karma is imagined as the murderous supernatural force pursuing those without virtue; the characters battle their way towards liberation, or fall through their own foolishness. Even the cyclic nature of the world is captured in the sense that the murderous force never truly dies, but reconstitutes itself again and again in the sequels.
I'm not going to dictate whether watching a horror story is good or bad, any more that I'd dictate that eating pizza is good or bad. They are indulgences, and in moderation indulgences are not necessarily harmful. So long as one is aware of the risk of reinforcing that fundamental egoic (mis)understanding of the world...

Ghost or horror stories/videos are not appropriate during a pandemic. Instead, you should educate yourself about the reality of pandemic, such as at this link.
Watching ghost or horror stories/videos is negligence or heedlessness. The Dhammapada says:

The foolish and ignorant indulge in heedlessness, but the wise one
keeps his heedfulness as his best treasure.
By Heedfulness did Indra become the overlord of the gods. Heedfulness
is ever praised, and heedlessness ever despised.

people need to survive and eat, that's the basic principle. They will produce more horror movie in pandemic state. Where there a demand, then it will have the supply. Horror movie didn't against any rules, so people will keep doing it.

While watching horror movies or reading horror stories are not against the five precepts, these are definitely considered unwholesome and unskillful, because they fill the mind with aversion and delusion, which are part of the three poisons.
From the Talaputa Sutta:

"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying,
'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply
answer you. Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with,
who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on
things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst
of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin
with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more
aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage
in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion
to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even
more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on
stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated
& heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the
breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell
of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on
the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them
delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the
body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,'
that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person
with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."


text:
Meditate mindfully instead of sleeping
Often around 2:00 p.m. after eating, my body falls tired. So I have to stop studying. I am myself a long term meditator, but I rarely meditate when I am tired. Is meditation a good substitute for sleep? In other words, around 2:00 p.m., if I am going to meditate mindfully for an hour instead of sleeping, will this meditation be able to replace sleep?

Often around 2:00 p.m. after eating, my body falls tired.

Might be a good idea to investigate and tackle the root cause to your tiredness first. Is it because you don't get enough sleep at night? or you usually eat a big lunch? or the workload is too stressful?...etc. It's actually not a bad idea to take a brief afternoon nap for 20-30 minutes to recharge your battery so you can come back to work all fresh and ready. Anyway, you should listen closely to your body. Try test it out/experiment with both of them, and see how your body reacts..

yes, investigate the root cause, or experiment with your lunches for a week. Reducing carbohydrate intake, and more specifically, flour based products such as bread, pizza, pasta, will reduce the reduce the insulin spike.

Meditation may result in you needing to sleep less, but it's not going to replace sleep.  To give you an example, at sesshin, we'll meditate for 10-15 hours a day.  By about the third day, not only am I well rested after about four hours of sleep, but I actually have trouble sleeping due to an increase in energy.  In fact, one guy in our sangha spends his nights knitting; sleep for him becomes pretty much optional.
In normal, non-retreat life, if you're sitting 2-3 hours a day, you might be able to get away with an hour or so less sleep per night.  What meditation won't do, however, is combat grogginess or those deep, thick, syrupy sleepy feelings that one has after a heavy meal.  When those come, if you try to sit, you're just going to fall asleep on the cushion.  You're much better off taking a quick nap.

Venerable Mahāmoggallāna struggled with drowsiness and the Buddha provided a list of suggestions laid out in AN7.61:

AN7.61:1.3: Now at that time, in the land of the Magadhans near Kallavāḷamutta Village, Venerable Mahāmoggallāna was nodding off while meditating.
...

AN7.61:2.3: “So, Moggallāna, don’t focus on or cultivate the perception that you were meditating on when you fell drowsy.
...

Many suggestions later, the last suggestion is to essentially take a nap.

AN7.61:9.1: But what if that doesn’t work? Then lie down in the lion’s posture—on the right side, placing one foot on top of the other—mindful and aware, and focused on the time of getting up.

In my own exploration of the escape from drowsiness, I've observed that physical activity (i.e., rousing energy) works remarkably well. Gentle chores such as housework and gardening alleviate mental burden while promoting circulation while also allowing digestion to proceed without competing with the brain for energy. Non-repetitive physical activity is best right after a meal, since stillness and repetitive activity lead to sleepiness.

In my opinion and personal experience is what the body need is relaxation. So keep the body still and meditating is as good as sleeping.

if meditating was as good as sleeping you would meditate each night instead of sleeping. also, the buddha would have never sleep.

It can be difficult to meditate if there is tiredness.
This said, it appears not necessary to sleep at 2pm.
Therefore, you can consider:

meditating instead of sleeping

eating less for lunch.


text:
What is the meaning behind the concept of "gods" in Buddhism?
This is a question solely addressed to those practitioners who state that any reference to 'gods' in the buddhist suttas/sutras is some kind of metaphor for something other than the kind of gods of other religions (i.e. gods that exist  independently of the belief in them, although subject to conditionality). It does not matter the tradition the user may be following.
In your understanding, what does "god" mean?
In what other words could "a god" be explained?
What processes or phenomena are they trying to convey?
I'd also appreciate if you quote any canonical source, discourse or teaching of other masters that could support any claim made.
Thanks in advance for your time and effort.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/42954/scriptural-evidence-for-the-role-and-compatibility-of-polytheism-within-buddhism/42956#42956

@Dhammadhatu Thanks DD for that link. I read the question, and I think my question have enough differences to be its own, apart question. I think your answer there is appropiate for this question. I like to keep it open for other answers as well. Kind regards, and thanks again.

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

In his commentary of MN 49, Ven. Thanissaro wrote:

It is a play on the word brahma, which is not only a noun denoting the
highest levels of devas, but also an adjective meaning "of great or
high power."

MN 49 is entitled the "Brahma invitation", so Ven. Thanissaro says that it means firstly an invitation by the Brahma, but it also means (through a word play) an invitation of great power or high power, which is an invitation by the Buddha to Mara (the personification of the temptation of sensual enjoyments and becoming) to refute the Buddha's claim that he has put an end to becoming once and for all.
An allegorical use of the term "Brahma" can be seen elsewhere. For e.g. parents are like the "Brahma" to their children in Iti 106 and the Buddha himself is like the "Brahma" to his disciples in Iti 100, who are "born from his mouth".
In Iti 112, we see the statement "he set the Brahma-wheel going". What is Brahma wheel? Ven. Thanissaro comments that it refers to the Dhamma wheel of SN 56.11:

The Brahma-wheel = the Dhamma-wheel, the name of the Buddha's first
sermon, so called because it contains a "wheel" that lists all twelve
permutations of two sets of variables: the four noble truths — stress,
its origination, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation —
and the three levels of knowledge appropriate to each truth: knowledge
of the truth, knowledge of the task appropriate to the truth, and
knowledge that the task has been completed. This wheel constitutes the
Buddha's most central teaching.

Here, calling the Dhamma wheel "Brahma wheel" denotes that it is the Great Wheel.
The most interesting use of this phrase comes in Iti 68:

One whose passion, aversion, & ignorance
are washed away,
is said to be
composed in mind,
Brahma-become,
awakened, Tathagata,
one for whom fear & hostility
are past,
one who's abandoned
the All.

Here's the Pali version from here:

“Yassa rāgo ca doso ca,
avijjā ca virājitā;
Taṃ bhāvitattaññataraṃ,
brahmabhūtaṃ tathāgataṃ;
Buddhaṃ verabhayātītaṃ,
āhu sabbappahāyinan”ti.

So the Tathagata is awakened (buddham) and became Brahma (brahmabhūtaṃ).
In other words, he became great, like a god to us.
Returning back to MN 49, the opening verse states:

Now on that occasion an evil viewpoint had arisen to Baka-Brahma:
'This is constant. This is permanent. This is eternal. This is total.
This is not subject to falling away — for this does not take birth,
does not age, does not die, does not fall away, does not reappear. And
there is no other, higher escape.'

Ven. Thanissaro's footnote reads:

Baka Brahma here appears to be referring both to his Brahma world and
to the state of mind that enables one to inhabit his Brahma world.

So, this points to Brahma as referring to states of mind and being (or becoming - bhava) which are of great and high power.
The sutta shows that such a mind state and state of being is not permanent or eternal, and there are even higher states of mind and being.
So, we can say that this is the "subtle" interpretation of Brahma.

Pali &  Sanskrit have the word "indriya", which in Pali can mean "controlling principal" or "directive force".
In Sanskrit or Vedic language, "indriya" can mean "fit for or belonging to or agreeable to Indra". In the Pali suttas, Indra is the king of the gods. DN 23 says Indra is to whom appeal should be made when needing protection.
Therefore, it all valid religions (which excludes fake religions, such as Protestantism), the notion of "god" or "gods" appears to represent at least both a controlling power & protector/guardian.
For example, SN 11.5 about different types of gods as different types of rulers and Iti 106 refers to the parents of children as "gods".
Refer to my answer here for further perspectives.

may I know where is solid n reviewed material mention Protestantism is false religion or Refrain from wrong speech @Dhammadhatu

hell is the destination for revilers and slanders of Noble Ones. your questions will never be answered again

To understand "gods" as used in Buddhism, I found this sutta helpful:

AN4.54:5.1: And how does a god live with a goddess?  It’s when the husband … is ethical, of good character …  And the wife is also … ethical, of good character … That’s how a god lives with a goddess.

From this I understood that the Buddhist gods embody stable, long-lasting, peaceful, harmonious, expansive and inclusive qualities. Remarkably, Buddhist gods are not immortal, but are also bound to change, to death, to suffering:

AN3.80:9.8: If Ānanda were to die while still not free of greed, he would rule as king of the gods for seven lifetimes, and as king of all India for seven lifetimes, because of the confidence of his heart.

Taken together, these two add up to a sobering conclusion. The perfections that we might wish for are all bound to change, to death, to suffering.

AN8.35:4.6: ‘If only, when my body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of the Gods of Brahmā’s Host!’

AN8.35:4.7: They settle on that idea, concentrate on it and develop it. As they’ve settled for less and not developed further, their idea leads to rebirth there.

And here we understand that the Buddha is telling us that we will need to go further. To end suffering, we will need to gently put aside our wish for heavenly perfections and follow the Noble Eightfold Path to realize the deeper Four Noble Truths.

I don't think this attempts to answer the question at all?

I believe it directly answers Brian's three questions in bold. Like Brian, I've wondered about gods in Buddhism. The EBT answers addressed all my own questions. In particular, it helped me understand the "recollection of the deities". Hopefully Brian may also find them valuable.

(I'm not claiming this to be the official teaching of any Buddhist school, but if you talk to enough Vajrayana practitioners you will see that this interpretation is a distillation of their common views.)
If you try to study anthropology or ethnology you can't help but notice that most cultures in the world have more or less the same notion variously called spirits, deities, demons, ghosts etc.
And in many of these cultures these deities/spirits are not just named characters but instead associate with and manifest a certain quality of human character or a certain abstract idea.
Claude Lévi-Strauss, Joseph Campbell, Carl Gustav Jung and many others studied these phenomena trying to find common patterns or structures. The consensus seems to be that these repeating themes and images represent certain elements inherent to human mind or collective psyche.
A deity can be described as a cyclic mental tendency, a thoughtform - being made up of, and influencing, the thoughts and motivations of its carriers. This symbiotic relationship between a deity and its carriers can be compared to the more recent secular concepts of the corporation (as a juridical person or legal entity), the consumer brand, and the meme or memeplex. You can read more about memes in the works of Richard Dawkins and Susan Blackmore.
A deity is a personification of a stable self-supporting non-physical tendency inhabiting the noosphere - the sphere of information, causation, and potential latencies.
This is how deities are understood in Vajrayana, as manifestations of the (non-dual) inter-human mind-realm.

Thanks for your answer, dear Andrei. When you say "non-dual", what kind of duality are you referring to? Subject-object? Physical-mental? Information-media? Kind regards!

Duality of "outer" and "inner".

And something else: when talking about realms and rebirth, what is meant when talking about X being reborn in the realm of devas or the like?

It is when you become a meme like Einstein, a popular character whose energy is passed on. For example Dalai Lama is simultaneously a human and a deity (a meme, a symbol). Jesus Christ became a deity after death. Etc. These are very notable examples but this also happens on a much smaller scale.

Thanks! I have one more question: how do we compatibilize the planes of existence as descriptions of mind states and devas as concepts and forms of information?

That seems quite compatible, when we are in samadhi focused on the realm of information (the noosphere), our mindstate shifts and we effectively enter the deity realm. Again, I'm not making this up, this seems to be the standard Vajrayana interpretation as I came to understand it.


text:
I'm looking for an outline of the practices going from beginner to jhana or streamentry
I'm looking for something similar to this little book, The
Basic
Method
of
Meditation (10~20 pages) from Ajahn Brahm.
Or something like this -- Meditation:
What is taught and practised in Pa-Auk.
Personally, I would need it to be Theravada and preferably be on the gentle side (unlike Brahm and Pa Auk which are pretty strict).
But mainly what the title says: an outline of the practices going from beginner to jhana or streamentry.

So you are looking for something simpler and more concise than those two links? But more clear than the outline suttas?

Theravāda is strict from the past to the future. PaAuk's path is very relax and easy  when comparing to self reading the Tipitaka and Atthakatha. Every rule is protecting the practitioner from the risk. The easy way is Samatha. Theravāda is teaching Vipassanā which is harder than Samatha.

@Bonn. I was going to write that too, that Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw's approach and teaching is gentle and relaxed yet firm but I wouldn't call it strict. It's a great beginner-to-advanced way of practicing the Jhanas.

Check https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN11_2.html and https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_70.html

This one would serve as a more detailed answer: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN39.html

If you want an authentic guide on early Buddhist meditation (Ajahn Brahm and Pa Auk teach meditation practices that are completely different, based on Vism. and late Buddhist redefinitions of jhana), here are two great books:
Thanissaro Bhikkhu's books and articles on dhammatalks.org, especially "With Each and Every Breath"
Bhante Henepola Gunaratana
Beyond Mindfulness in Plain English, 2010 CE (from wisdom pub). The book is more broadly based on EBT Jhāna. 16 APS is one of the methods he discusses, but does not focus in detail on the 16 steps.

Observing five precepts is the shortest way to enter the path. Then read the following.
A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening
OR
Buddhism Course by Chan Khoon San (take about 12 hours to read and give you a good idea about the teaching)


text:
Question on Dhammapada Verse 30
I am trying to understand the meaning of the verse below: Verse 30 from Dhammapada.

Appamadena maghava
devanam setthatam gato
appamadam pasamanti
pamado garahito sada.

"By Heedfulness did Indra become the overlord of the gods. Heedfulness
is ever praised, and heedlessness ever despised." - Acharya
Buddharakkhita's translation of Dhammapada 30.

In above verse the word "maghava" is a Vedic word which means Lord Indra of Vedic times.
During "Vedic Brahmanism", Lord Indra is superior of all gods.
Does this verse means that Buddha accepted the existence of Gods?
Also the verse mentions that because of appamada, Indra become the overlord.
Does it mean Lord Indra has the insight of Nibbana ? Appreciate your answer.

There is no evidence the Buddha himself spoke any sutta, apart from suttas that can be verified by meditation to accurately diagnose & end suffering. Therefore, we cannot know if the Buddha accepted the existence of Gods or what the Gods exactly were or meant to the Buddha. For example, in the suttas, Iti 106 says the Buddha said parents are the gods of their children; therefore gods in this context is obviously not supernatural.
It appears "Maghava" refers to "Sakka" in the Pali suttas, where eventually Sakka becomes a disciple of the Buddha. The following suttas are mere examples:

MN 37 - Sakka inquiring about Buddha's Dhamma then being warned by Buddha's chief disciple for being heedless in respect to sensual pleasures. Here, Sakka lives in a palace with many female nymphs.

SN 11.4, where Sakka is called "Maghavā" (bhayā nu maghavā sakka) when questioned by an asura about how to respond to & manage ordinary people.

DN 16 where Sakka expresses Noble or enlightened understanding to the Buddha's passing away: "Transient are all compounded things, Subject to arise and vanish; Having come into existence they pass away; Good is the peace when they forever cease.".

While each of the above may simply be religious propaganda written in religious scriptures (to propagate the Buddha is superior to Indra, Brahma & other Vedic & Hindu gods), each of the above shows Sakka is not eternal, not omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, MN 37 & SN 11.4 give the impression Sakka is the leader of the rich & powerful, such as an Emperor of Rome, Genghis Khan, Suleiman the Magnificent or Lord Rothschild.
As for "heedfulness", this may not include the higher teachings of Buddhism such as not-self (anatta) that lead to Nibbana. For example, the word "heedfulness" or "carefulness" is found many times in the Jewish & Christian Bible. SN 11.4 shows how Sakka won the debate among the different gods by having heedfulness in relation to being patient. This does not show he was close to Nibbana. It only shows he had morality & was thus only heedful in respect to maintaining his patience & virtue.

Matali
‘When face to face with Vepacitti, is it, Maghava, from fear or
weakness, that you endure him so patiently, listening to his harsh
words?’
Sakka:
‘It is neither through fear nor weakness that I am patient with
Vepacitti. How can a wise person like me engage in combat with a
fool?’
Of goals that culminate in one’s own good
None is found better than patience.
One who repays an angry man with anger Thereby makes things worse for
himself. Not repaying an angry man with anger, One wins a battle hard
to win.
‘He practises for the welfare of both, His own and the other’s, When,
knowing that his foe is angry, He mindfully maintains his peace.
‘He achieves the cure of both— His own and the other’s.’

considering meaning from pali dictionary link and also from the meaning of words in verse(devanam=among gods,setthatam=superiority), i guess Maghava is not clearly  human. Also check this Rig veda Hymn (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/SAN0010/_PJF.HTM) and from here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra) Maghava is the most referred deity in Rig Veda which is oldest known vedic text. Also heedlessness may not be just maintaining  morality as Dhammpada verse 32 says "The monk who delights in heedfulness and looks with fear at heedlessness will not fall. He is close to Nibbana.

i did not say heedfulness is only maintaining morality. you should try to read my answer accurately

The verse is simply praising appamada (heedfulness) and criticizing pamada (heedlessness).
The use of the character Indra here is just for the listener who believes in Indra as the king of the gods.
The Pali suttas do mention gods (devas, brahmas) but none of them are supreme, eternal or immortal. They are also not omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Whether you believe in gods or not, it doesn't matter in walking the path of the Noble Eightfold Path and understanding the Four Noble Truths.
Dhammapada 30 just provides an example of what is taught in the Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor,
heaven, high birth:
To those who delight
in aspiring for these things
in great measure, continuously,
The wise praise heedfulness
in making merit.
The wise person, heedful,
acquires a two-fold welfare:
welfare in this life &
welfare in the next.
By breaking through to his welfare
he's called prudent, wise.

Yes, heedfulness in the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path can bring insight, but it's a general term that is also applicable in worldly life to bring worldly rewards too.
Please read this answer to understand what heedfulness is.

During "Vedic Brahmanism", Lord Indra is superior of all gods. Does this verse means that Buddha accepted the existence of Gods?

Sure, but the Buddhist notion of the gods wouldn't be the same as others theistic religions. In Buddhism, the gods/devas, though being very advanced and highly meritorious beings, are still sentient beings not yet able to escape the chain of Samsara, hence still have "work to do".

Also the verse mentions that because of appamada, Indra become the overlord. Does it mean Lord Indra has the insight of Nibbana ? Appreciate your answer.

Dhp 30's context is about worldly merit, the kind of which will get one to be reborn into higher realms. To gain insight of Nibbana, it'd require a much more dedicated, rigorous, and advanced training in Sila/Samadhi/Panna, the Four Noble Truth, and the Noble Eightfold Path. Matter of fact, while Sakka's position as the Lord of the Thirty-three Gods is quite powerful, his realm compared to the overall schematics of all the realms of existence is still relatively un-impressive (it still belongs to the Sensuous World/Kama-Loka). Refer to the Thirty-one Planes of Existence for further details.


text:
Mindfulness improves academic performance?
I have just started a PhD in Mathematics. Can serious mindfulness practice (i.e. vipassana meditation at least 2 hours a day) help improve academic performance? If so, can you attach any reliable studies on this?

See a related post that might provide some useful info. : https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/14251/best-type-of-meditation-for-attention/14252#14252

@santa100 Yes, I have already seen it. I have even upvote this post

This question appears not answerable. For example, if your vipassana practise is highly successful, your mind could become "dispassionate" towards mathematics. Instead of earning a PHD, you might become a monk & spend your life wandering among peasants in Cambodia.

Please see this answer for adaptation of Buddhist mindfulness into medical therapies called Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT).
Those therapies are not Buddhist (as in their goals are not the goals of Buddhism), but they are based on Buddhist practices. If stress, depression and anxiety impede academic performance, then those practices can help.
That answer provides the studies on MBSR and MBCT.


text:
What's the role of altruism in Buddhism?
In discussions about how to translate words such as averena (a negation of some quality), I've seen two general kinds of answer: or the compound word is not just the negation of the suffix, but its polar opposite; or the compound word is just a negation of the suffix. In the case of averena, the first method renders 'love', 'loving-kindness', or whatever translation is used for metta; in the second, 'non-hatred' is the translated concept.
This discussion (on how to translate negations) has made me think on the role of altruism in Buddhism (which can be seen as unrelated to the root topic at first).
I know there are suttas like AN 11.1 which explain the importance of virtous conduct to the development of the other factors of the path. These suttas seem to indicate that the main purpose of ethics is to liberate one's own mind (which, of course, makes one a positive influence on others). But also there are suttas like SN 47.19 state that looking for others is key as well. I don't see both positions as contradictory, but as complementary. And we have as well the teachings on the practice of Brahmaviharas, with metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha as mind-states to cultivate.
Despite all of the above, in the descriptions of the Noble Eightfold Path (which I understand as containing all that's sufficient and necessary for "moving" from sotapanna to arahant) Samma Sankappa is broken down as nekkhamma, abyapada and avihimsa, with at least two of those three factors being words with negative prefixes, which depending on how you translate negations, could indicate the predominant role of the absence of the unwholesome over the presence of the polar opposite of the unwholesome, i.e. non-hatred over loving-kindness.
After considering all of above, here's the question:
What would you say is the role of altruism (understood as an active effort for improving the quality of life of other, whether by teaching the Dhamma, giving advice, getting involved in education, improving access to material conditions, etc.) and other forms of positive (as "presence of something", not as "good") wholesome deeds in the different buddhist traditions?
How important is to buddhist to make the world a better place, not just by developing negative (as "absence of something", not as "bad") wholesome qualities, but by changing the general conditions of the world?
EDIT: I'd like to add a new question to give more perspective:
As santa100 has noted, the negation of the unwholesome includes the positive wholesome deeds. However, it'd be interesting to know how important is for the buddhist practice to actively engage in positive wholesome conduct, and why does it matter. With that I mean: what effects does have on the world and on ones own mind to do those positive deeds?
My motivation for gaining some perspective on this is to know what to think about the idea of buddhism being not altruistic enough.
I'd appreciate personal points of view and/or references to buddhist teaching/discourses that support your views.
I apologize for any wrong understanding of the Dhamma I could have expressed in the premisses. Please, correct me if that's the case.

Do you mean positive instead of negative here - "negative wholesome qualities"?

Hi! No, it was on purpose. Maybe it makes more sense if that sentence is read with 'not just by developing' before it. Also, I edited to specify that "negative" means "absence of something", rather than "bad" or "unskillful". Kind regards!

Also see https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/18406/43

somewhat surprising question, as Karuna/ Compassion is generally a fundamental feature of Buddhism; maybe temper the passages from Chavalata Sutta with Dhammapada V 158 ~Establish first in oneself what is correct before instructing others. (cf ~doing for oneself & neglecting others etc, which could have various contexts); and the form of the altruistic benefit, and if true noncraving altruism, etc. thank you  :)

@MH Hi! I agree, it's a suprising question. As I said after editing the post, the motivation for this was to gain some perspective for having better arguments (both for my own understanding and for answering others) about the claim of buddhism being "not that altruistic" in comparison to other religions. Personally, I don't think that's necessarily the case, because it depends a lot on the definitions of altruism and the motivations/reasons for it.

@MH Also, more motivation for my question came from listening some Dhamma talks given by some Venerables. From what I remember (if I didn't misunderstand), one of them has stated multiple times that metta is actually non-hatred, karuna is non-ill-will and *mudita is non-cruelty. Apparently, he is so emphatic on this idea because he wanted to distinguish metta what we currently call "love", which can contain a great spectrum of concepts: christian inconditional love of one's neighbor, fraternal love, platonic love, filial love, romantic love, etc.

@MH It seems that for this Venerable, metta is not a positive wholesome quality, but the absence of the unwholesome quality of hatred.  As I see it, the consequence of would be that, effectively, Buddhism would not put emphasis on the same kinds of "actively altruistic" acts as other practitioners of other religious would. And this would also be coherent with some criticisms I've heard towards "Engaged Dharma", in regards to the apparent misunderstanding of what metta really is (according to the critics). Kind regards!

When it comes to Buddhism applied to social ethics, we must emphasize Peace, Health, and Harmonious co-existence (with other people and species) as the key goals to aim for, both tactically and strategically.
In effect you are asking whether one should focus on not creating the opposites of these three in one's own life vs. actively working out there in the world to cultivate them at the level of society at large.
I think the answer is obvious. The first is limited to self and the second is unlimited and more strategic. This difference in attitude has long been a point of contrast between Mahayana and other schools.
Of course one should be careful to avoid creating War, Diseases, and Conflict while unskillfully trying to promote Peace, Health, and Harmony. This is why Buddhism often insists on first healing oneself to a sufficient degree, before trying to help the others.
But in general I don't think there's a contradiction between active altruism and "negative altruism" as long as you define your goal correctly as Peace-Health-Harmony. The conflict only arises if you define altruism as helping people attain better quality of life or attain their desires - then it gets troublesome, because they may be at odd with the Buddhist goals.

Altruism is defined as the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
With respect to Buddhism, altruism is therefore:

AN4.95:1.4: one who practices to benefit others, but not themselves;

Quite significantly, Buddhism goes further:

AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Importantly, those who practice to benefit themselves but not others are not practicing stinginess in the conventional sense. Rather, those who practice to benefit themselves but not others are in seclusion extinguishing defilements of self-involvement.
Ultimately, Buddhists ideally practice to benefit themselves and others:

AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

When I first read this, I found it a startling departure from my preconception that altruism was the highest ideal.
A parallel consideration here is that altruism concerns itself with "good deeds". Here, too, the Buddha says quite simply:

AN4.233:1.3: There are dark deeds with dark results; bright deeds with bright results;

But the Buddha goes on to say more:

AN4.233:1.5: dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results; and neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

We're all familiar with the muddle of dark and bright. But what is the fourth goal?

AN4.233:5.1: And what are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds?  It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results.

That fourth goal leads to the end of suffering for all.

The Dhammapada teaches to leave miserliness and embrace giving and charity.

177. Truly, misers fare not to heavenly realms; nor, indeed, do
fools praise generosity. But the wise man rejoices in giving, and by
that alone does he become happy hereafter.
223. Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked
by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth.

Iti 26 (below) has a strong message to give and to share, even the last bite, the last mouthful, but of course, the purpose is to remove the stain of selfishness from the mind, in addition to helping others.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing,
they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of
selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite,
their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if
there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not
know, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without
having given. The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds."

AN 3.57 (below) praises charity and giving even to animals, but does say that it is far better to give to a virtuous person rather than an unvirtuous person.

"I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned
five factors and is endowed with five.

Iti 100 (below) talks about different types of donations and states that the donation or gift of the Dhamma (teachings) is the best type of donation or gift:

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

AN 8.33 (below) states 8 reasons for giving:

Bhikkhus, there are these eight grounds for giving. What eight? (1)
One gives a gift from desire. (2) One gives a gift from hatred. (3)
One gives a gift from delusion. (4) One gives a gift from fear. (5)
One gives a gift, thinking: ‘Giving was practiced before by my father
and forefathers; I should not abandon this ancient family custom.’ (6)
One gives a gift, thinking: ‘Having given this gift, with the breakup
of the body, after death, I will be reborn in a good destination, in a
heavenly world.’ (7) One gives a gift, thinking: ‘When I am giving
this gift my mind becomes placid, and elation and joy arise.’ (8) One
gives a gift for the purpose of ornamenting the mind, equipping the
mind. These are the eight grounds for giving.”

However, AN 7.52 (below) states that adorning the mind is the best reason for giving. From this answer, "adorning the mind" means making the mind more virtuous, similar to Iti 26 above.

“Sāriputta, someone who gives gifts, not for any other reason, but
thinking, ‘This is an adornment and requisite for the mind’, when
their body breaks up, after death, is reborn among the gods of
Brahmā’s Host. When that deed, success, fame, and sovereignty is spent
they are a non-returner; they do not return to this state of
existence.

So, from the perspective of Buddhism:

Not all reasons to give are equal. The reason to adorn the mind is the best reason, more so than trying to change the world and make it a better place.
Not all gifts are equal. The gift of the Dhamma (teachings) is the best.
Not all recipients are equal. Giving to a virtuous person is better than giving to an unvirtuous person. Giving to a human is better than giving to an animal.

If you really want to change the world with a very significant impact, you must be a wheel-turning monarch (DN 26).
But the Dhammapada states that stream entry is better than becoming a wheel-turning monarch:

178. Better than sole sovereignty over the earth, better than going to heaven, better even than lordship over all the worlds is the
supramundane Fruition of Stream Entrance.

So, no matter how you look it, the main goal of altruism in Buddhism is always adorning the mind, which based on AN 11.1, leads to stream entry and then to permanent extinguishment of suffering.

How important is to buddhist to make the world a better place, not just by developing negative (as "absence of something", not as "bad") wholesome qualities, but by changing the general conditions of the world?

In terms of logical expression, the absence of something is actually a super-set that already includes positive forms. Ex: "one who is NOT an idiot" is a super-set of all sets of people from average intelligence, above-average, high, superior, to vastly superior intelligence. So the common application of negation in Buddhist text is actually a good thing, for it provides an umbrella term that covers the full spectrum of all practitioners from beginners, regulars, advanced, all the way to the fully enlightened, hence including all facets of training, from mere abstaining from doing harms, to actively engaging in positive wholesome conducts.

Thanks for your answer! You talk about the negation of the unwholesome as including the positive wholesome deeds; I agree on that. However, it'd be interesting to know how important is for the buddhist practice to actively engage in positive wholesome conduct, and why does it matter* With that I mean: what effects does have on the world and on ones own mind to do those positive deeds. My motivation for gaining some perspective on this is to know what to think about the idea of buddhism being not altruistic enough.  What are your thoughts on that? Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores, as mentioned, the Buddhist's use of negation is actually a positive attribute for it's inclusive of all people from all levels of practice. So, it's not the case that Buddhism is "not altruistic enough". If any, if only means it's "altruistic for all levels". Another key point to keep in mind is, since Buddhism is not a theistic religion, one practices altruism not to please some higher being hence gaining some favor for his afterlive. Instead, the real purpose of altruism is really the practice of renunciation and letting go of clinging.

The world is currently in a really bad place therefore no amount of altruism can tangibly make the world a better place.
For example, I often give what i can to independent reporters who risk their lives in foreign countries (or report other things) but, in reality, that is a waste of time because so few people listen to their reporting.
Or recently I gave some donations to Beirut & Gaza but I trust the Gaza donation won't do much.
The role of altruism is to make your heart & hands open; so you are free from miserliness & hardheartedness.
For example, when a Devadatta enemy came trolling for donations for his friend on DW, I immediately gave a donation without a thought. Someone asked me so I gave.
Then when another Devadatta enemy criticized me, I gave another (small) donation in his name to save his soul from rebirth punishment with King Yama in Niraya Hell.
This is what altruism is. When reasonably asked, you give.
The only purpose is the development of your heart to be unselfish; without fear.

And what is the wealth of generosity? Here, a noble disciple dwells at
home with a heart devoid of the stain of miserliness, freely generous,
openhanded, delighting in relinquishment, devoted to charity,
delighting in giving and sharing. This is called the wealth of
generosity.
Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako vigatamalamaccherena cetasā agāraṃ
ajjhāvasati muttacāgo payatapāṇi vosaggarato yācayogo
dānasaṃvibhāgarato.Idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, cāgadhanaṃ.
AN 5.47


text:
Illegitimate children
this is the situation:
a children is born from fornication years ago when the couple were young, years passed the guy married. the women gave the child for adoption. Now the women brings up the child (who is an adult now) to the guy who is happily married. What does the Buddhist texts or teachings say about the illegitimate children born from fornication?,
Is there anything  that mentions this?

Buddhism concerns itself with the behaviour of people rather than birth status. Refer to MN 98.
In other words, an ethical person who was an illegitimate child is regarded to be superior or happier than an unethical person who was a legitimate child.

Good answer and very true.

Sex outside marriage without the intention of becoming married may be against the third of the five precepts.
However, there is nothing wrong about the illegitimate child himself (or herself).
From the Sundarika Sutta (SN 7.9) (below), birth (i.e social class or social status) is unimportant. Conduct is important.

Then Sundarika the brahmin went up to the Buddha, and said to him:
“Sir, in what caste were you born?”

“Don’t ask about birth, ask about conduct.
For any wood can surely generate fire.
A steadfast sage, even though from a low class family,
is a thoroughbred checked by conscience.

Also please see Legends of Somdet Toh, by Ven. Thanissaro. It chronicles tales from the life of a famous and well-loved monk who lived in Thailand in the 19th century. He is the illegitimate child of a noble man who later became King Rama II. His status as an illegitimate child was apparently known to the monks who ordained him.

so the child should be welcomed between the marriage?

@Solstice There is no reason why the illegitimate child should not be welcomed.


text:
Day to day practice
Strong  headache dissolved with little  time of meditation. Previous experience was differ from  this,when this type of headache experienced it wasn't dissolved by practiced meditation. And happiness slowly invading while headache dissolving. Insight came it as anatta. Is it true anatta?

Who experienced this insight of anatta?

Observing the headache truly:

MN62:8.5: This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Observing the happiness truly:

MN62:8.5: This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

How can the impermanent be true?

SN12.61:4.1: But that which is called ‘mind’ or ‘sentience’ or ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night.

The truth satisfies. Chasing selves and not-selves does not satisfy.

SN35.164:1.3: “Yo kho, koṭṭhika, anattā tatra te chando pahātabbo.

SN35.164:1.3: “Koṭṭhita, you should give up desire for what is not-self.


text:
when one Citta perishes,from where does the next arise?
Anatman/Anatta says that the 'self'is a momentary flux of Cittas-Vijnanas.There can be no stable permanent Citta,in kshanabhangavada a dharma perishes before its successor arises.one citta arises then perishes and another takes its place all going on until Nirvana is established.However,when one citta perishes,from where and what does the next Citta arise?it cannot be a nothing.but the Citta also cannot preexist as that would be absurd and there would be infinite mes or yous right now somewhere.it would also mean that the world would be Fate.but such a notion is Absurd anyway.it cannot also be that there is an infinite set of predetermined Cittas in a dormant state.as Cittas are all that' Exist' in the Mahayana and Tibetan schools.They cannot be dormant.dormant where?in a concrete external world?if such a receptacle existed wich was permanent and unchanging and not momentary it would be a Self!
Citta can be equated with Vijnana Skandha or alaya vijnana aswell,as the alayavijnana is momentary within Buddhism.
it cannot be that the Citta has the same substance as the former Citta because then it would just be the same Citta and Cittas are not Substantial according to Nagarjuna.
It cannot be that a Citta endures until the next arises because this would confer confused Experience and still the former Citta has no Causal power to create another Citta Exnihilo.
So how does the momentary flux of Cittas work?

You cannot use the word "where" as Citta doesn't acquire space. You can't say it's in the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or heart as nāma and rūpa don't get mixed. You cannot sense Citta with your five senses. Citta doesn't travel but get far things as its object. There's no time gap between two Cittas, even between death consciousness and re-linking consciousness.

Citta arises from mentality-and-materiality (nama-rupa). As long as the physical body (materiality) is alive, cittas will continue to arise.
Note: citta is of the same substance as consciousness.

Mentality-and-materiality is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate. SN 22.82
With the origination of mentality-and-materiality there is the origination of
citta. With the cessation of mentality-and-materiality there is the passing away of
citta. SN 47.42

from where does mentality arise?

mentality is an "element" ("dhatu") of nature. refer to link: https://suttacentral.net/mn115/en/sujato the specific exact details of how these elements came to be created is not answerable. for example, in the sutta DN 11, its is said the question about where do the four physical cease without remainder is an inappropriate question. see link: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html the Buddha was concerned about the creation of mental suffering rather the creation of mind & matter or the universe.... regards

But if they are not arisen then they are eternal selves?and how can mentality cease and then arise again out of nothing?

As I explained in my answer about dharmas, the dharmas (including cittas) are not discrete. There's no distinct "previous" and "next" dharmas. Instead, things morph and stir continuously like clouds - and this includes the thoughts too.

[Nagasena:] ‘Just so, O king, does the continuity of dharmas connect. One emerges, another dissolves, connecting as it were without [a clear boundary between] the previous and the next, thus the former-consciousness and the next-consciousness cannot be categorized as either the same nor as different.’

This invalidates all the points made in your question.

but the Buddhia dharma says that there is a interval between different vijnanas.Vijnanas aren't thoughts,they are the alayavijnana wich makes thought possible.if you believe the alayavijnana is permanent and not discrete into many alayas,each ceasing and arising in intervals, then you are not a Orthodox Buddhist but fall in line more with hinduism.

What you just said is some weird mix of Theravada and Yogacara concepts that I've never heard before.

its Svatantrika Yogachara.and their synthesises with madhyamika in tibet.original Yogachara believed in a atman.

By svatantrika-yogacara you mean Santaraksita's analysis? I'm petty sure you misunderstood.

You might as easily ask where the next wave comes from once a wave has crashed on the beach. The answer is that the wave is not the water. The wave is the result of movement within the water, of various internal flows within the water pushing against each other (including the flow of water out from the last wave as it recedes). In philosophy jargon, a wave is epiphenomenal: it is the outwardly observable expression of some phenomenon we cannot easily observe.
Dharmas are like waves. Cittas are like waves. Thoughts are like waves. Selves are like waves. They are upwellings caused by tangled movements within in the vast ocean of karma. The practice is to untangle and smooth over those deep movements so that the upwellings abate.

OP: Anatman/Anatta says that the 'self'is a momentary flux of Cittas-Vijnanas.

There's a stream of consciousness but it's not self. There's no self at all. That's why the blessed one said, "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta".

OP: There can be no stable permanent Citta.

Yes, it's true. Everything unless Nibbana is impermanent. So is Citta.

OP: In kshanabhangavada a dharma perishes before its successor arises.

Here, if you are asking about the stream of consciousness, it is true according to Teravada Abhidhamma. One Citta perishes before the next arises. How different Dhammas be the causes in different causalities to make an effect is very complex. No single Dhamma arise with a single cause. There are many causes and one Dhamma may be a cause for another Dhamma in different causalities (paccaya). For example two Dhamma can be co-exist being the causes for each other. This is called, Annamanna-paccaya.

OP: One citta arises then perishes and another takes its place all going on until Nirvana is established.

This process permanently ends with Anupadisesa Nibbana. But it can be temporarily stopped  (paused) with Nirodha Samapatti.

OP: However,when one citta perishes,from where and what does the next Citta arise?

This is not a suitable question to ask since "Where" is not applicable for Citta. Citta doesn't acquire space. It's a Nama Dhamma. You can ask "How, When, What, Which" questions about Citta, but not "Where" questions. May I ask you a question, "If you plant a seed in a fertile soil and water it, it will become a plant. From where that plant came from? Was it inside that seed or was it somewhere else?". You may answer, "Don't ask such a question. The plant doesn't come from anywhere. The plant is produced when the conditions are met." Same applies for Citta. If certain conditions satisfied Citta will arise. You can't say where that Citta arise from.

OP: It cannot be that the Citta has the same substance as the former Citta.

Even if the next (or another) Citta has the same mental formations as the present Citta, those two Citta won't be identical. For the ease of learning about Citta, we may classify all the Citta with same mental formations into a same group and give it a common name. But two Citta won't be identical. For example, if we take two Citta in the same stream of consciousness which take the same thing as their object won't be identical. Then how about taking different things as Citta's objects? They are definitely different.
Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

By avija (not knowing) and tanha (craving) do saṅkhāras (formation) arise, good householder, does world come to arise. Here a possibility for gatī in another sphere.

I think the problem is that you're mixing two school of thought, the concept of momentary flux,momentary consciousness, etc has no place in Nagarjuna's teaching or that of Mahayana in general.

so mahayana believes in a self?if the alaya is permanent,it is a self.

No, non of the Buddhism sect that i know believe in a permanent self. I think you have to approach all sects cautiously without being combative.  However, quoting Nagarjuna's MMK. ...Just as the view that there is a Self is not ultimately true (atattva), so too its opposite—the view that there is no Self—is also not ultimately true. In this way, they taught that there is neither any Self, nor any non-Self whatsoever"

That which is called mind, intellect or consciousness arises as one thing and ceases as another. The conditioned element changes as it persists. The past is one end, the future is the other end, the present is the middle and craving is the seamstress.
The premise of your question is flawed as nowhere in the Sutta is mind explained to be arising and ceasing as one and the same thing before the arising of another.  Such interpretations are wrong and easy to disprove by contradiction.

The Buddhist body-mind model is similar to the hardware-software model of how a computer or robot works.
Hardware and software (of a computer or robot) are both machines or automatons on their own right and also depend on each other to continue functioning. It is similar in the case of the mind and the body. Even if the exact mechanism is not the same, the general principle is the same.
Just as how a robot or computer (hardware-software) does not require a soul or Self to function, similarly the body-mind also does not require a soul or Self to function. The self is just an idea of the mind.
Please note from DN 2:

“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to
imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision.
He understands thus: ‘This is my body, having material form, composed
of the four primary elements, originating from father and mother,
built up out of rice and gruel, impermanent, subject to rubbing and
pressing, to dissolution and dispersion. And this is my consciousness,
supported by it and bound up with it.’

The last statement shows the dependence of mind on body to continue functioning ("supported by it") and also the inter-dependence of mind and body with each other ("bound up with it").
From here, I quote the Buddhist teacher Stephen Batchelor who describes this operation as a fluidic stream of events:

I would argue that there is really no present moment. The present
moment is one of these things that Buddhists have become terribly
attached to. If you think about it, you try to find the present
moment, you will never find anything. The present moment is actually
just a concept; it can be a very useful, strategic concept … I will
often say when instructing in meditation, “Stay in the present
moment.” But I don’t mean by that, try to find this elusive thing
called the present moment and stay in it. It’s basically a way of
saying, Don’t get caught up in the unknown future. Don’t get caught up
in reminiscing about the past. But confront the situation at hand. And
the situation at hand is always unfolding. It’s fluid. It’s like
water, it’s like a stream. Things are constantly impacting your
senses, constantly bubbling up in your thoughts, constantly emerging
as emotions and feelings; it’s always in motion, it’s moving. And it’s
such a mobile experience that notion of ‘The present moment’ really
has no place there. There’s no point really. So, every situation that
occurs, and you could call it ‘at the present moment’ if you wish, but
it’s basically an unfolding of events that is calling forth an
appropriate response. And in this sense, it’s always in time.

A river looks like it flows uninterruptedly, just like the mind. But the river is composed of moving water molecules - each time you look at a flowing stream, you are looking at a different set of water molecules.
Similarly, the movement of the mind involves arising and ceasing cittas - so fast, that they appear uninterrupted.
Now scientific studies are also validating this - please see this answer for details.

But the Alaya(Citta,Vijnana skandha) ceases.there is an interval.and then a new alaya arises  from somewhere else(nothing ?).this is the Buddhist doctrine.its not like a river wich flows uninterruptedly at all!

@johnyman I don't think it is so easy to say "this is the buddhist doctrine" without simplifying what's complex. I'd suggest not assuming to be true what you assume to be true. Kind regards!

@johnyman A river looks like it flows uninterruptedly, just like the mind. But the river is composed of moving water molecules - each time you look at the flowing stream, you are looking at a different set of water molecules. Similarly, the movement of the mind involves arising and ceasing cittas - so fast, that they appear uninterrupted. Now scientific studies are also validating this - please see this answer for details.