text:
Does kamma define the universal law of cause & effect?
I read the following verbal kamma on the internet:

Karma can be expressed like the magnetic push or pull that defines the
universal law of 'cause and effect'. Karma follows a similar rule as
le Chatelier's principle in chemistry and in physics Newton's third
law of motion

What is the universal law of cause & effect in Buddhism?
Does kamma define the universal law of cause & effect?
Does kamma also involve an equal and opposite reaction?

In its simplest and clearest sense, karma is merely the recognition that the universe is a cohesive and coherent whole, not a collection of individual things moving independently of each other. When one takes an action, the results of that action spread out through the world, like ripples spreading over a pond. And like ripples spreading in a pond, the results of our actions reflect back in odd and sundry ways so that we are always affected by our own behavior.
People often misinterpret karma as a simplistic 'tit for tat', or as 'direct reward or punishment': e.g., as though if you slap someone across the face, you'll turn around and get slapped across your own face. That's understandable, but naïve; the truth is more subtle. If you slap someone across the face, you may or may not get slapped in turn, but you've certainly changed the world you live in. You've created a world in which slapping someone is 'normalized'; in which hostility and resentment are heightened; in which people look at you as someone who is willing to slap another across the face. You now have to live in that world you've created, come what may, and so does everyone around you.
Karma tells us there are no un-resonant acts; dharma teaches us to care for the resonances we create in the world.
Chatelier's principle and Newton's laws are aspects of karma related to the material (non-conscious, non-human) world. Normally when we talk about karma we mean to talk about the relationship of sentient beings to each other and to the world, because sentient beings (unlike non-sentient objects) ostensibly have the capacity to adjust their behavior and conform to dharmic principles. A river has no choice about how it flows; a human (ideally) does. But if you're going to generalize, generalize to the conscious, not to the non-conscious. Karma encompasses natural law, not the other way around.

i marked this post down. It appears to be mere personal ideology and has no relationship to the subject matter of this forum, namely, Buddhism.

@Dhammadhatu: I'm sorry you see it that way.

if you provided some links to authentic buddhist references, your sorrow may be alleviated. regards

@Dhammadhatu: Maybe, though my sorrow runs fairly deep... Look, if you're looking for scriptural authority I may not be your guy, and others can certainly fill that role better. May they answer you at their leisure.  But if you want to understand, I can help you understand. It's what I do, and what I am, and I don't pretend to anything else. Take it for what it's worth, and if you think it's worth nothing at all, then take it as a gift. I have nothing else to offer you.

no.... you cannot help me understand anything; apart from ignorance & misplaced conceit. if you simply acknowledged the truth of my critique, this discussion between us would have have ended eons ago because i posted the truth. there is no need for you to take offense or be defensive towards what i wrote. simply say, OK, yes, its my view. kind regards

@Dhammadhatu: I see. That's fine.

In Buddhism, the laws of nature based in cause & effect are said to be fivefold, namely:

The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of
natural law, or niyama. They are:

Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way
flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and
nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and
decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by
heat or temperature.

Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."

Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental
reactions to them.

Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this
is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds
bring bad results."

Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and
then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of
affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

Therefore, kamma is only one example or subset of the "principle of cause & effect", called "idappaccayata".
Per MN 136, the results of the same kamma can vary. Per MN 117, the law of kamma is not any kind of absolute truth or law and is only a general law.
For example, two heedless people may engage in sexual misconduct, by having thoughtless aimless sex outside a clear mutual plan of marriage; where one individual falls in love with the other person and the other person loses interest in the first person due to non-mutual attributes.
The heartbroken individual may suffer for many years while the other person may realise the heedless interaction was sexual misconduct and then attain enlightenment via the abandonment of heedless behaviour.
This shows kamma does not involve any equal and opposite reaction. In the Lonaphala Sutta, it is said the results of kamma for a wise person may be trifling; while for an unwise person the results of the same kamma cause 'rebirth' in hell.
In conclusion, Le Chatelier's principle in chemistry and Newton's third law of motion in physics have zero application to the Buddhist law of kamma because the results of the same kamma for each person will have differing degrees.


text:
Is intention "conscious energy" in Buddhism?
I read the following intentional thought on the internet:

Intention is directed conscious energy. When we think about doing
something, where does that energy go? Thoughts like these are created
before every conscious action as a means to mitigate the quantity and
quality of the repercussion. If an individual cultivates an intention
enough, the chances of inadvertently performing the action is more
within reason.

What is "conscious energy" in Buddhism?

In Buddhism, does "conscious intention" mean "wise intention"?

If cultivating intention leads to action more within reason, are ignorant actions without intention or unintentional in Buddhism?

I can only define this from a Theravada perspective, that being: intention is the energizing of action which comes about through sensory stimulation. In that way, it could be seen as 'directed conscious energy' because, in Theravada, they often use the six-sense consciousnesses model. For instance, an object impedes the eye, a feeling/perception initiates intention. The conglomerate (heaped mass) of these components is called consciousness, or in this instance 'eye consciousness', (Pali: cakkhu-viññāṇa). It begins with form, the first of the five aggregates. That's how the passage you have quoted reads to me.
Now, occasionally I write my own suttas and as I was responding to this, one of my suttas came to mind. Here is an excerpt that may strengthen my interpretation of the passage you quoted.
...Furthermore, monks - form, feeling, perception and volition are to be observed as they are. Imagine four town pigeons in place of these four aggregates wondering loosely in the same vicinity. When food is thrown down, they swarm towards that food, they gather around that food and, in doing so, they appear to create a single mass. That single mass makes up the fifth aggregate of consciousness. In the same way, when a sense object is thrown into the range of the eye organ, form, feeling, perception and volition gather and contract into a subjective experience brought about by contact with that sense object. That very subjective experience is known as consciousness. Monks, this is birth...
In other spiritual fields, conscious energy might be given a different interpretation. For example, conscious energy could be confused with mindfulness in Buddhism and I think this answers your second question.
From a Theravada perspective, (using the six-sense consciousnesses model) directed conscious energy can be seen to produce one of three actions from which their corresponding results occur - vipaka:  wholesome, unwholesome or neutral or kusala, akusala and avyākata respectively.
To conclude, it might be best to relinquish the narrowing down of any interpretation of 'directed conscious energy' and keep it within the wider scope of the previous paragraph.

you appear to be saying all states of consciousness result in intention. is this so? for example, now i can hear the faint but pervasive mass hum or chirp of many insects from all of the trees around me. are you saying my mind has intention towards this mass of humming sound?

lol - u write your own suttas. that  is fricking amazing !

@Dhammadhatu - Yes, your mind had intention towards the sound of the insects; your attention was placed at the ear organ from which you drew up a description of that sound. The question is: did you personally choose to place your attention there? Moreover, it's not necessary to understand intention in quantitative terms, but to see that its various appearances are dependent on circumstances for which ownership seems redundant.

thanks for your answers, but, sorry, no, there is no intention whatsoever towards the insect sounds

@Dhammadhatu - you may be correct. My understanding of these things is evolving. Kind regards.

No problem. This forum is just internet banter. With metta

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is the tranquil mind vipassana; assessing before consciousness; and dualized self?
I read the following on the internet:

Vipassana, the tranquil mind, is the core.
When emotions arise, the tranquil mind observes and assesses before
the conscious is involved.
The tranquil mind will recognise the burning heart and dualise
the self. When the self becomes two, the emotions don't rule the mind
and the mind doesn't rule the emotions.

Is vipassana the tranquil mind?
Does the tranquil mind observe before the arising of consciousness?
What is meant by dualizing the self?
How does the tranquil mind dualize the self?
How does the dualized self stop emotions not ruling the mind?

1. Is vipassana the tranquil mind?

Vipassana is insight, which can be achieved through vipassana meditation.
Samatha is tranquility, which can be achieved through samatha meditation.
Thus, vipassana is not the tranquil mind, but samatha meditation can lead to a tranquil mind.

"These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two? Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
When tranquillity is developed, what purpose does it serve? The mind
is developed. And when the mind is developed, what purpose does it
serve? Passion is abandoned.
When insight is developed, what purpose does it serve? Discernment is
developed. And when discernment is developed, what purpose does it
serve? Ignorance is abandoned."
...
(Vijja-bhagiya Sutta)

 2. Does the tranquil mind observe before the arising of consciousness?

Consciousness arises before name-&-form (nama-rupa), which are mental and physical phenomena. Thus, the tranquil mind would not observe before the arising of consciousness; consciousness would arise first, then the tranquil mind would observe.

...
"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
...
And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form."
...
(Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta)

3. What is meant by dualizing the self?

There is no self in the first place because of impermanence. Thus, no self can be dualized.

...
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...
"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...
"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...
"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable
sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful,
venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since
subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I,
this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
...
(Anatta-lakkhana Sutta)

4. How does the tranquil mind dualize the self?

There is no self to dualize (refer back to my previous answer to question number 3). Thus, the tranquil mind does not dualize the self.
5. How does the dualized self stop emotions not ruling the mind?

There is no self, and therefore no dualized self (refer back to my previous answer to question number 3). Thus, there is no dualized self to do such.
-Apannaka

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


text:
Does anatta cause dynamic emotions?
I read the following on the internet:

In an uncultivated individual the emotions rule the self. This is the
result of lack of understanding of Anatta and somehow the individual
is putting conscious effort into the stagnation of their naturally
dynamic emotions.
Emotions are naturally dynamic and a result of environmental
influence, which is also dynamic - so in that sense Anatta is
applicable.

What are "dynamic emotions" in Buddhism?
Does anatta or its realisation stop the stagnation of naturally dynamic emotions?

What are "dynamic emotions" in Buddhism?

"Dynamic emotions" is somewhat sloppy language. It just means that samsaric phenomena, in this case emotions, are in a constant flux. They are ever-changing and arise and cease incessantly and without any control.

Does anatta or its realisation stop the stagnation of naturally dynamic emotions?

Sorry, I didn't understand this question. You write "stop the stagnation" - do you mean if the natural process of exhaustion of causes and conditions can be stopped by realizing Anatta?
There are 3 gateways/doors to liberation - truly realizing and understanding Anatta is one of them. So in that sense, the process of becoming can be stopped by winning Nibbana, thereby issuing liberation from the rounds of suffering.

the above appears to be saying the realization of anatta does not stop samsara, which seems contrary to what the suttas teach, such as in SN 22.99

Think of the mind as a body of water, like a pond, or river, or lake. It has a natural flow, and responds to the environment around it with currents and waves and tides. We call these liquid movements of the mind by different names depending on how we experience them — thoughts, moods, emotions, passions, etc. — and when we are meditating we seek to let them all come to stillness. But it's useful to know there is no separation here. These 'objects' (thoughts, emotions, etc) are epiphenomena: the mind's way of explaining its own movements when it cannot see itself fully.
Before we cultivate the concept of anatta we have an egoic self, and the nature of an egoic self is that it tries to generate, organize, and marshal these flows to its own purposes. If the egoic self feels a slight, it may not be enough that a wave of anger rises and falls. That wave may have to be corralled, perpetuated, and put to use to achieve some vengeance. If the egoic self feels the stirrings of love, it may not be enough to let that current flow as it will. The egoic mind may channel and focus that current into romantic pursuit, ardor, even possessiveness and jealousy.
All of this can lead to the stagnation of emotion: the egoic mind forcing the movements of the mind into ruts or patterns that may or may not be useful, functional, or healthy. We all know someone who is constantly angry and constantly looking for new reasons to be angry, because the egoic mind has established that pattern. They have an attachment to anger, and that attachment ties up the natural flows of the mind in that one emotion. When one developed an understanding of anatta, those attachments start to break away (because there is no self to anchor them to) and the energy tied up in them returns to its more natural state.


text:
How we can go to the pari-nirvana if not by being a bodhisattva?
I had noticed something that seemed to me a contradiction. I would be grateful if someone could resolve for me this contradiction .
To attain the state of pari-nirvana you need to liberate yourself from the lie of being a separate part of the universe, then the pari-nirvana through this prism seems to be an egoistic thing since you exit yourself from the samsara but you leave the other existences in  samsara.Which seem the epitome of egoism
But the bodhisattva return to the world for helping the other existences which seem more altruistic and by this way more close to pari-nirvana.
Therefore we get that going to pari-nirvana is in a certain sense a contradiction with being liberated from the lies ...
I hope I am being clear...
Thanks in advance !

The notion of egoism is tied to greed, cruelty & conceit and these are tied to the adherence to a doctrine of self.
One who adheres to the doctrine of self analyzes the senses and what the senses present as self and not self, as personal and impersonal.
One who does not adhere to the doctrine of self rightly discerns that all conditioned things are impermanent and that it should not be and should not occur, they analyze the senses and what the senses present as 'this is stress, this is path to the cessation of stress' and having developed that path they abandon all being, with no residue for a future the stable one's reach the end of all stress & misery.
When one emerges from cessation of perception & feeling attainment it is as if one plunged back into a dream or a mirrage.
How foolish would it be to be stuck in that nightmare for the sake of what is grasped with wrong view to be personal for others when the whole that world is simply conceived & perceived due to delusion.

Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately.
Beginning with the body
as taught by the One
with profound discernment:
when abandoned by three things
— life, warmth, & consciousness —
form is rejected, cast aside.
When bereft of these
it lies thrown away,
senseless, a meal for others.
That's the way it goes:
it's a magic trick,
an idiot's babbling.
It's said to be a murderer.
No substance here is found.
Thus a monk, persistence aroused,
should view the aggregates
by day & by night, mindful, alert;
should discard all fetters;
should make himself his own refuge;
should live as if his head were on fire —
in hopes of the state with no falling away.

Follow not the vulgar way; live not in heedlessness; hold not false views; linger not long in worldly existence.

One who looks upon the world as a bubble and a mirage, him the King of Death sees not.

One who abandons delusion has no incentive-desire to conceive & perceive impermanent phenomena and does not grasp elements as personal for this or that being because they know that there are elements and the elements aren't personal, they simply come into play due to the causal relations & requisite conditions.

“Bhikkhus, just as when the stalk of a bunch of mangoes has been cut, all the mangoes on it go with it, just so the Tathāgata’s link with becoming has been cut. As long as the body subsists, devas and humans will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of the life-span, devas and humans will see him no more.”
— Brahmajāla Sutta

What appears as a contradiction is the difference between Theravada and Mahayana paths. I cannot speak for the Theravada path since my study is Mahayana, but in our tradition, bodhicitta is necessary for enlightenment, eg: from the Diamond Sutra:

One who wants to give rise to the highest, most fulfilled, and
awakened mind must create this resolved attitude of mind: I must help
to lead all beings to the shore of awakening.

I have been taught that this is not a contradiction, but, rather, that Buddha gave many teachings, all tailored to the student. And that yes, it is possible to achieve nirvana, and become permanently liberated from samsara, the cycle of suffering, without bodhicitta. But that is not the path I am on. And whether or not it is possible to 'lead all lead all beings to the shore of awakening' is not the point. The point is having the intention to do so, and also, of including those you do not like.

Could you maybe develop on the sentence "And that yes, it is possible to achieve nirvana, and become permanently liberated from samsara, the cycle of suffering, without bodhicitta" this sound strange for me ...

Thanks in advance

@Anonyme this is because one who has a direct experience of emptiness is liberated, with or without bodhicitta, and this is the typical aim of the Theravada practitioner.

@Anonyme I think they consider that to be Enlightenment. The Mahayana practitioner does not. Enlightenment, as I understand it, is liberation plus omniscience which does require bodhicitta. And bodhicitta is the 24/7 mind of compassion for all sentient beings.

Thank you very much !

Actually when the Buddha was enlightened, he was not inclined to save the world. That came later.

SN6.1:4.1: And as the Buddha reflected like this, his mind inclined to remaining passive, not to teaching the Dhamma.

It was Brahmā Sahampati who appealed to the Buddha:

SN6.1:5.5: “Sir, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the Holy One teach the Dhamma!  There are beings with little dust in their eyes. They’re in decline because they haven’t heard the teaching.  There will be those who understand the teaching!”

The Buddha sought an end to suffering. After he realized the Four Noble Truths, he also saw that he could not free people who clung to greed, hate and delusion. Brahmā Sahampati inspired him to teach those who were unsatisfied with greed, hate and delusion.
Parinibbāna is the end of suffering. Having realized the end of suffering, one shares that with those who will listen. Trying to save the entire world is impractical, even for Buddhas.


text:
Is it possible to share merit to all beings like Angels, hungry ghosts, animals etc
I read stories in Petavatthu which describe how people offer donations to the sangha and transfer the merit to their deceased relatives who are born as hungry ghosts, so that they can get alleviate the suffering experienced by the hungry ghosts. In the same way, is it possible to share merit to other beings like Angels, animals, etc, because I haven't come across this in the texts.

i answered this question here https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22375/8157

@Dhammadhatu, thank you for taking time to respond. Has the Buddha himself ever mentioned that other beings, like Angels, animals, humans etc don't receive the merits one transfers. Sorry, I am not doubting you, I am just trying to understand.

Not sure Dhammadhatu's answer is direct answer for this question.
So sharing merit (telling your good merit) to animals doesn't work because they (almost every of animals) do not have any mind to understand good merit and eventually not able to be happy/together with you about your merit. So they will not share the effect of being happy/together of good merit.
Angles (frequently gods in Buddhist literature) may have little chance to know/care about your good merit since their lives are more about consuming the effects of good karma instead of cultivating good karma and sharing merit of others. There might possibility that some lower angels (gods) wandering on earth or living like human among us who can be shared our good merit but it is not so strong effects like on hungry ghosts because it is greatly differ in terms of necessity.

Thanks for taking time to respond. I have asked this question on chat groups and talks but I get mixed answers. I do, before taking a meal or when visiting a monastery, mentally wish for transfer of my good merits to all beings. But just want to know if there a mention of it in the texts, as to whether do all beings really receive my good merit.

It is highly appreciated spreading Metta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitrī) before taking meal or when visiting monastery what you always do. For reference texts I will try to update my findings. Due to bad time and degraded foods around us, my memory will never be as good as people from previous century.

Traditionally, the amount of merit you could send to an "angel" (I'm assuming this is a translation of "deva?" Caroline Rhys Davids used to translate "deva" as "angel.") is incredibly meagre compared to the amount they already have. This is not your or "our" fault. We are humans who live here because of certain past deeds. A human birth is precious, but a divine birth is more pleasurable and is the fruit of greater merit.
We send merit to the ghosts, animals, demons, because they are destitute in spiritual poverty. They "need" it, so to speak. There is nothing at all stopping you from transferring merit to the gods, but they don't "need" it in a way those suffering in the lower destinies do.

If you want to help the ghosts, get wholesome food and drink in seven clean vessels each, an excessive amount is not necessary. Seven vessels of pure water and seven vessels of vegetables would do nicely. Meat is not "wholesome food" for this exercise. As much as you would eat. You won't be eating the food if you do this, so keep that in mind.
Place the food and drink on your altar. Perform loving-kindness meditation to sentient beings in all directions. Then, recollect the sufferings of the hungry ghosts and send maitrī to those of the unfortunate destinies. Assume the dhyānamudrā. Recite in a strong clear moderately-loud voice (your pronunciation doesn't matter too much for this kind of lay ceremony):
唵啞葛嚕穆看薩哩斡塔哩麻南啞牒耶奴忒班荅奴忒
on akaro mokan sariwa tо̄rimanan achōyadoto hantōdoto
唵啞吽癹吒莎訶
on a un ho sоwaka
This dhāraṇī requires no empowerment or ordination. This is a section of the "Releasing of the Flaming Mouths," a food offering with a mantra. A more "souped-up" version of this is performed by the saṁgha for funerals. The food will be able to satiate the hungry ghosts. It is said that upon eating the food, the ghosts will become freed of ghosthood and be reborn as animals or humans according to their karma. Afterward, leave the food in the woods or burn it. Do not eat it. The vessels can be washed and re-used for anything. It is recommended to very thoroughly wash them.

Thanks for taking time to respond to my question. So you are saying that merit can indeed be transferred to Angels, but I haven't come across that in the texts. Could you please let me know in where you read it or come across it. Just curious.

I've never heard about it. There is no reason why you couldn't offer your merit to devas, but it is not traditionally done. It doesn't seem like it would be useful to you or them.


text:
Is the Avatamsaka Sutra the only Buddhist scripture that talks about multiverse?
I know the Avatamsaka Sutra teaches about a multiverse flower garland, which represents all of reality, is made up of infinite universes which all reflect one another.
Is this the only scripture that talks about multiverses?

The Avatamsaka Sutra speaks of "worlds" or "realms", not of universes, and certainly not about the scientific theory of the multiverse:

In all atoms of all lands Buddha enters, each and every one, Producing
miracle displays for sentient beings: Such is the way of Vairocana....
The techniques of the Buddhas are inconceivable, All appearing in
accord with beings’ minds.... In each atom the Buddhas of all times
Appear, according to inclinations; While their essential nature
neither comes nor goes, By their vow power they pervade the worlds.

The characters written in the text for this are usually 境界 (Jìngjiè), where 境 means "territory" and 界 means "world", usually rendered in English as "realm".
For "universe", the characters 宇宙 (Yǔzhòu) would be used. These do not appear anywhere in the Chinese text.

What's the difference between infinite realms/worlds vs universes?

"Multiverse" is a specific concept in theoretical physics.

The Buddhist scripture that aligns most closely with a vision of a potential multiverse is probably the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan jing in Chinese or Kegon kyo in Japanese). This sutra, purportedly transferred immediately after Sakyamuni Buddha’s enlightenment, presents a visionary multiverse reflected in the tiniest particle. -- Buddhistview Door

The difference between a "world-system/lokadhatu/世界" and a "universe" is that a world-system is a series of disks that float in a cosmic ocean surrounded by a cosmic cloud. The ancient Indians conceived of each world as having its own Sumeru, its own four continents, its own sun and moon etc. The idea of a "modern universe" of different orbiting structures in space really isn't to be found in Iron Age Buddhist literature or the literature of latter ages based upon it.

Well from what I've read, modern science has been heavily inspired by Buddhist multiverse teachings so I don't know

It's really not. Modern physics' multiverse is a prediction that comes out of calculations in quantum mechanics, something that didn't even exist as a concept before 1952, when Shrodinger first mentioned it in a lecture.


text:
What is called an intentional thought?
I'm a 16 old student and I'm getting weird and intrusive thoughts which are unwanted and unintentional. I got those thoughts about buddha which can be greater insult for Him. But none of them are intended or wanted. Do this collect bad kamma? I've begun to fear those thoughts as I'm someone who fear sinning more than anyone. Please help me, what should I do?

There's no sin in Buddhism. Buddha will not be offended if you're thinking some silly thoughts. Don't hurt yourself with this fear. No need to perpetuate those silly thoughts either, it won't do you any good. Focus on what's beneficial. Such as study of Dharma.
Karma is not watching you, it does not revenge or punish. Karma is the future you build with your choices, day after day after day.

In the teaching of Dependent Origination, intentional thought arises at the 4th condition called 'nama-rupa'. The unintentional thoughts that arise prior to this, at the 2nd condition called 'sankhara', are the product of ignorance (SN 12.2) and/or past becoming (MN 9).
Therefore, weird and intrusive thoughts ('hindrances'; 'asava') which are unwanted and unintentional are the inevitable results of past becoming (MN 9) and kamma (AN 10.61). Not wanting such thoughts cannot stop their arising because the arising of such thoughts follows the law of Dependent Origination; which is a fixed absolute law.
Your questions on this forum appear to show a conflict between internal personal desires and the desires of your mother making you make promises to the Buddha. If you live with your parents, you must generally obey most of their directives when their directives are reasonable. Buddhism clearly teaches Buddhist parents have a duty to "protect" their children from harmful things (DN 31).
However, being forced to make promises to the Buddha is not proper. Instead, whatever concerns your mother has about your actions, your mother should clearly explain why such actions may be harmful & dangerous for you. If your mother is unable to do this, making promises to the Buddha is unlikely to be effective. Therefore, it is natural for your mind to rebel against or reject anything forced upon it; including rejecting the Buddha.
Rejecting the Buddha does not really collect bad kamma. What collects bad kamma is the underlying reason why the Buddha is being rejected. For example, if the Buddha is rejected to justify engaging in drug taking or sexual misconduct, the collecting of bad kamma will be caused by the drug taking or sexual misconduct.
If you are a young person, it can be difficult to understand lust, let alone give it up; because nature creates lust to control the mind of teenagers/young adults. If lust did not control the minds of young adults, young adults would not have sex and make babies. For most of history, most girls were married at 16 years old and had children very soon after. But today, young people accumulate lust because the corporate society makes money from trading in addictions. Today, most young people believe sex is for entertainment rather than for reproduction. Of lust, the Buddha said:

When a person lives heedlessly, his craving grows like a creeping
vine. He runs now here    & now  there, as if looking for fruit:  a
monkey in the forest.

In summary, it is expected in a society with birth control and pornographic entertainment that young people fight against their parents and fight against the Buddha; unless their parents are immoral sexual liberals. In Buddhism, this is called "amataputtikabhaya" ("danger of not having parents").


text:
Was Buddha had a expected food poisoning?
Refer to the link below, the Buddha was poisoned in his last meal. Where can i find more information about this?
Why was Buddha poisoned?

The Buddha died after eating a meal often called “pig’s delight” (Skt.
sukaramaddava, lit. “soft” or “mild pig”) offered to him by the
metalworker, Cunda Kammāraputta, in his mango grove in Pava, between
November and January, en route to Kapilavastu, the place of his birth.
The nature of this meal is uncertain. It might have been pork (the
Buddha was not vegetarian) or mushrooms

There are many version of the cause of death. Which one found to be truth and supporting facts?

I was also told by my Buddhist friend that he died because of eating pork. It seems pork was a poison then ... these days pork is a delicacy... or may be death as event is a coming together of various factors including beliefs of people who lived then... may be pork was an abomination for upper caste hindus.. Metal worker did not give him food in good spirits,... may be there was hatred.

This is documented in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta's story about the meal containing sukara-maddava served by Cunda to the Buddha, which is presumed to be the cause of dysentery experienced by the Buddha.
The Mahaparinibbana Sutta is sutta 16 of the Digha Nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali Canon, which is the sutta explaining the events leading to the Buddha's passing away and events that occurred after that.
The Pali Canon is the authoritative canonical scripture of Theravada Buddhism, and is an Early Buddhist Text. Please read this answer for details.
In this footnote, sukara-maddava is explained:

Sukara-maddava: a controversial term which has therefore been left
untranslated. Sukara = pig; maddava = soft, tender, delicate. Hence
two alternative renderings of the compound are possible: (1) the
tender parts of a pig or boar; (2) what is enjoyed by pigs and boars.
In the latter meaning, the term has been thought to refer to a
mushroom or truffle, or a yam or tuber. K.E. Neumann, in the preface
to his German translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, quotes from an
Indian compendium of medicinal plants, the Rajanigantu, several plants
beginning with sukara.
The commentary to our text gives three alternative explanations: (1)
the flesh from a single first-born (wild) pig, neither too young nor
too old, which had come to hand naturally, i.e., without intentional
killing; (2) a preparation of soft boiled rice cooked with the five
cow-products; (3) a kind of alchemistic elixir (rasayanavidhi).
Dhammapala, in his commentary to Udana VIII.5, gives, in addition,
young bamboo shoots trampled by pigs (sukarehi maddita-vamsakaliro).


text:
In the Tibetan book of the dead, Chapter 2, what is the significance of NOT renouncing the 3 poisons
I am reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead Chapter 2 page 26, "A prayer for union with the spiritual teacher [entitled], Natural Liberation, without renunciation of the three poisons".
Now in reading this chapter it seems that is a call for union with the fundamental buddha bodies of Reality, Resource, and Emanation.
I find it curious that the chapter EXPLICITLY states what the three poisons are, makes a mention "how needing of compassion ..." are buddha bodies that engage in these poisons and proceeds to give an explicit solution, yet renunciation of the poisons is not asked of the reader in fact the title of the prayer explicitly states they will not be renounced.
Why is it important NOT to renounce these poisons at this stage of prayer? The beginning of the book makes it clear that much will be renounced (including the desire of sympathy) as it merely perpetuates our cyclic existence yet here an explicit effort is being made to acknowledge the poisons but NOT renounce them.
What reason is there for this? At best I can theorize that this has to do with avoiding the type of extreme asceticism that the buddha believed did not allow one to break the cycle, but surely anyone engaging in the poisons described without some renunciation will be trapped all the same.

Which translation are you using?

Sorry for the long delay: the translation I’m using is the penguin classics “First complete translation” deluxe edition with introductory commentary from his holiness the Dalai Lama

It’s an orange colored book with a blue plant printed on the spine.

Not renouncing the three poisons is considered a foundational prelude to the journey, that the practitioner develops a recognition and respect of the function of the three poisons - which comes about as one reads and gives further practice - and that, in this graduated development, grows the clear seeing of liberation. By this very seeing, the three poisons dwindle and waver of their own tender, and not through the recourse of any self-governing motivations which are, by and large, etched with the three poisons, marred by them. Thus, the relinquishment of the three poisons occurs naturally.
Therefore, recognition and respect of the three poisons is something that grows through persistence. If I understand him correctly, Andrei Volkov mentioned - indirectly - that they simply present as growing pains that are transmuted into compassion where he refers to the three poisons in their greater domain, as samsara.

The transformed purified attitude to samsara is called "compassion" or
"unity of wisdom and compassion". You still see all those childish
behaviours, neuroses etc. but you see them as growing pains, as part
of an evolution. You see that in the grand scheme of things everything
is perfect and is going as it's supposed to. At that point you can try
and help as much as you can, but you also have patience to let things
develop naturally.
See more here

In some respect, renouncing the three poisons is to renounce liberation in and of itself.


text:
Recalling Neither Perception nor Non-Perception for Nimittas
In the state known as neither perception nor non-perception, it seems impossible to cognize the relative particulates that allow it to occur as an event, but one can emerge mindfully from its attainment, as is stated in the Anupada Sutta. Hence, there is a beginning and an end to the event. In this way, I can only define it by what is absent rather than what is present - similar to exiting a noisy nightclub and resting in the dead of the night, then entering the nightclub again, taking with me only the memory of the still night.

Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment.
Anupada Sutta

This leaves a trace-memory of the event that can be recalled, but even that itself is tenuous for two reasons, 1) by its very definition (neither perception nor non-perception) - from beginning to end - its particulates are so subtle, so indistinct that one can not confidently declare "I am emerged in neither perception nor non-percpetion". 2. The recall itself poses some accuracy issues, that since it is now in the memory, it is open to all sorts of interpretations including how I have chosen to define it here.
In the instance of neither perception nor non-perception, it seems the ability to discern and cognize are nimittas that are absent. Please correct me?
Is it sufficient for the mind to have experienced the presence of neither perception nor non-perception or must it be investigated further?

I wouldn't dismiss the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception too casually.
The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception separates the dimension of nothingness from the cessation of perception of feeling. Perception originates from contact, so the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is the subtlest dimension for understanding that origination.  The Buddha's instruction to Moggallāna underscores the importance of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Moggallāna declares:

SN40.8:1.7: While I was in that meditation, perceptions and attentions accompanied by the dimension of nothingness beset me.  Then the Buddha came up to me with his psychic power and said,
SN40.8:2.2: ‘Moggallāna, Moggallāna!
Don’t neglect the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception,
brahmin! Settle your mind in the dimension of neither perception nor
non-perception; unify your mind and immerse it in the dimension of
neither perception nor non-perception.’

I'd argue that its largely irrelevant.  The content of meditative experience really has no bearing on ones practice.  The insight that is attained when one emerges from those states is what matters.  The only value of truly deep meditative absorption is that it allows for equally deep vipassana.

Seeing the suffering caused by attachment to the body is the insight right there, but one can only tread that ground so many times. Can you add anything more?

Well, when you come out of the perception/non perception, what do you experience?  Any answer anyone can give you is essentially worthless compared to that.

And for the record, practically speaking, attachment to the body pretty much evaporates even after the first jhana.  I'd go so far as to say that it can't even be accessed while feelings of self preservation exist.

Thank you. I downvoted your answer because of its dismissive tone and the narrow, dried and dessicated suggestion of 'doing vipassana'.

Samatha practice is only a prelude to vipassana practice.  This was the Buddha's distinguishing discovery.   It's what separates him from his first two teachers.  I'm not trying to be a jerk, but unless you are applying a purified mind to some kind of object - a koan, a defilement, the morning star, whatever - you are wasting your samatha work.

The sutta is peculiar

Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him.

Qualities here is 'dhammā', plural hence the 'ā'
The sutta is peculiar because it does not say what those dhammā are as it does for the other attainmemts as in;

Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of nothingness — the perception of the dimension of nothingness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers.

This sutta simply doesn't say what those qualities are in the case of neither perception nor non-perception and the expression is reduced to

So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play.

I can only speculate as to why the naming of the dhammā is omitted but the point is that there are dhammā which can be ferreted out one-by-one & named and dispassion towards those dhammā ought to be developed.

The property of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is to be reached as a remnant-of-fabrications [sankharā] attainment.

BTW;

As for these two dimensions — the attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception & the attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception — I tell you that they are to be rightly explained by those monks who are meditators, skilled in attaining, skilled in attaining & emerging, who have attained & emerged in dependence on them.”

I would also say that it is largely irrelevant, given the keywords you’ve listed as constraints for your requested answer. However, I would like to make a correction to the phrasing of your question in that it is not “the ability to discern and cognize... that are absent” but discernment and cognition that are absent, i.e., the faculty is there, but quiescent. It isn’t a meaningless difference, and is important in tantrayana practices.
In practice, this is a state in which there is just spaciousness. No thought of a meditator meditating, or of accomplishment, enlightenment, wisdom, perfection, nor anything else. No thoughts arise. Sensations are no longer attended to, not because one stops attending to them, but because that discriminating response is simply no longer functioning. If you turn your mind toward such a sensation, it will be actively apperceived as a sensation of a particular type, so the mind must rest as it is: spaciousness—but not just empty dead space. Instead, one reaches a stage where there is just clear lucidity, in the sense of reflexive knowing that we can also call clarity. This means our normal perspective evaporates. Time no longer passes. There is not even a need for the concept of "now." Just illumination without limit. Beyond this, there can be only poetry.
As Jigme Lingpa, ending with a quote from the “Perfected Skill of the Lion” tantra, puts it:

Thus, according to the tradition of this vehicle, the nature of the mind is—from the very beginning—great natural liberation. Recognizing that is called “awareness.” By maintaining this continuity, the state of Buddhahood will be directly realized, which is why this path is more expeditious than any other. In this way [practitioners] will gain inspiration.

In addition, [the instructions] on clarifying doubt and subduing hinderances are as follows. While maintaining the continuity of the great, indwelling fundamental nature, if one thinks that the nature of this awareness is empty, the one ascribing emptiness to this is the intellect, which has a focal point. The way the meditative concentration with a focal point does not produce Buddhahood is as stated in the “Perfected Skill of the Lion” tantra:

“The meaning of the nature of phenomena cannot be seen through meditation with concentration. The samādhi of one’s own appearances eludes the direction of concentration. Free from elaboration, the nature of phenomena is equal to the limits of space. All mental considerations are devoid of conceptual fixation with objects. The dharmakāya Buddha free from the four extremes, such as existing or not, is one's own awareness” (“The Yeshe Lama,” page 5)

This is very helpful. I'm familiar with the expansion of space such that it no longer interests my mind, but there is not even any sense of spaciousness - its dimensionless but with a pristine and unassuming, ordinary clarity. It's neither here nor there nor here and there nor nowhere. I've been dropping into this for about 12 months. Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree with the labeling of neither perception nor non-perception.

There is a pattern: after exiting these things, my mind becomes turbulent and upset and all sorts of emotional difficulties arise until such time I am able to manage them. When things have calmed down I can enter into these events again and the whole thing performs the same cycle.

You should be directing your mind to the factors that give rise to these difficulties.  All you are doing in samatha is suppressing them temporarily.  This is important - it allows you to effectively examine them - but unless you examine them, they will continue to arise.

@user20010 - For sure! Satipatthana throughout the day informs me of the conditions from which they occur. Just meditating is pointless if one cannot bring those meditative qualities into everyday life. The question was targeted and does not represent the entirety of my practice. I hope that helps. Kind regards.


text:
Non-sentient beings and sentient beings
At first I want to say sorry for my English, as it is my second language.
My questions:

Can non-sentient beings reach nirvana?
Can non-sentient beings be reborn?
Can sentient beings be reborn as non-sentient beings?
Will all beings eventually reach nirvana?

Thanks in advance for an answer.

In the original Pali Buddhism, "a being" ("satta") means "clinging" and is a wrong view (refer to SN 23.2 & SN 5.10). Therefore it is not possible for any "being" to reach Nirvana; since all "beings" abide in samsara; hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, assuming form, feeling, perception, formations &/or consciousness to be a self (per SN 22.99).
It appears the emphasis about "sentient beings" is in Mahayana.

Idk what u mean by Non sentient beings but maybe one can say that of plants as in they are according to Sutta 'alive but aren't percepient'.

There is a class of "insentient" being in the Buddhadharma called the asaṃjñasattva, a class of devas in the bṛhatphalā heaven of the fourth dhyāna. This is maybe what you mean? These live lives of non-perception until perception arises when they are reborn in a lower state after their merit has exhausted itself and their lifespan ends.
From Abhidhamma in Daily Life by Venerable Janakabhivamsa (Chanmyay Sayadaw):

Asannasatta Brahmas: Asannasatta Brahmas are those divine beings without any consciousness or mind. As human beings they discover the faults of citta (mind) and sañña (memory). They see that all forms of greed arises because of citta, they also see that life would be so peaceful had there been no citta. While concentrating on the fault of consciousness, “Citta is loathsome. Citta is loathsome”, they develop a kammatthana called sannaviraga bhávaná - disgust for sañña.
When they die they are reborn as Brahmas, in the Asannasatta Brahma realms and live like golden statues, standing, sitting or reclining without consciousness. Their life span is 500 kappa’s long.

That was a Theravādin Venerable expounding. This is from Abhidharmakośakārikā as translated by Louis de La Vallée-Poussin:

What is non-consciousness (āsaṃjñika)?
Non-consciousness is that which, among the Nonconscious Ones, arrests the mind and its mental states. Among the beings who take birth among the Non-Conscious Ones, i.e., the non-conscious gods, there is a dharma that arrests the mind and its mental states, and which is called "non-consciousness." By this dharma, the mind and future dharmas are, for a certain time, hindered from being produced and do not have the power to arise. This dharma is similar to what arrests the water of a river, that is, (similar) to a dike.
This dharma is exclusively retribution. It is exclusively the retribution of non-conscious absorption (asaṃjñāsamāpatti, ii.42a).
Where do these non-conscious gods reside?
They live in bṛhatphalā. In the heaven of the bṛhatphalās there is a raised place which is the dwelling of the Non-Conscious Ones, in the same way as the dhyānāntarikā, the dwelling of the Mahābrahmā gods, is raised withinnthe heaven of the Brahmapurohitas (iii.2c;222 Vibhāsa, TD 27, p.784b5).
Are the Non-Conscious Ones called this because they are always non-conscious, or are they sometimes conscious?
They are conscious at birth and at death (iii.42; Vibhāsa, TD 27, p. 784c8); they are called non-conscious because their consciousness is suspended for a very long time. When, after this long time, they produce a consciousness again, they die. As it says in the Sutra "When they produce consciousness again, they die, like a person awakening after sleep." Dying in the non-conscious heaven, they are necessarily reborn in the Kāmadhātu and nowhere else. (1) In fact, the force of asaṃjñāsamāpatti (ii.42a), by which these beings are born among the Non-Conscious Ones, is exhausted; they have not been in a position to practice asaṃjñāsamāpatti: hence they die, as arrows fall to the ground when their impetus is spent. (2) On the other hand, beings who are reborn among the Non-Conscious Ones necessarily possess an action "retributive in kāmadhātu" and "retributive in the second existence" (iv.50b).

Devas of even higher classes could be described as "non-sentient" to various degrees but even those without perception, with neither perception nor non-perception etc.,  eventually die.


text:
Multiverse in Buddhism?
According to this answer:

31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are
infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be
similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of
beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally
rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be
reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places
every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live
in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the
lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such
being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The
cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the
same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would
believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the
universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a
few of the great disciples may have managed to do this.

Can anyone expand on this, or simplify it?

I think this entire world system with it's thousandfold systems can be thought of as a single system of conceivable points of reference or observers as in special relativity.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html

That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline. And what, friends, is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world? The eye is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world . The ear … The nose … The tongue … The body … The mind is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world. That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline. https://suttacentral.net/sn35.116/en/bodhi

Therefore you get many conceived & perceived worlds in a conceived & perceived world.

So are universes contracting in Buddhism similar to Hinduism in which universes are created, then dissolved?

It is complicated because vedic and buddhist understanding of what is reality is entirely different. There can be no 1:1 corralation. In Buddhism, as i undersyand it, space is infinite and doesn't contract but that which is in space can expand & contract, yet space is conceived & perceived as integral part of the world. So i think of the world as dimensions or layers of perception.

Ie space is conceived as infinite but if you can teleport anywhere you can't teleport to infinity as it is not a location, so one has to conceive of a determined distance and go there only to perceive it.

So ie big bang has to be tied to perception from beginning because otherwise the wave function wpuldn't collapse and no matter would evolve. According to Buddhist text ie genesis sutta, matter evolves as morality becomes corrupted and beings get coarser bodies.

Hmmm, is that all branches of Buddhism? Because I've talked to some Buddhists about this and they said it was universes, so could it depend on the branch/sect?

Buddhist sects believe different things, a sect may have different factions within it and most do. Even at the time of the Buddha many monks held wrong views, at some point right views became a minority.

I will post references to texts i referenced when i get home so u can make up ur own mind.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

https://suttacentral.net/dn27/en/tw-caf_rhysdavids

http://www.suttas.com/mn-115-bahudhatuka-sutta-the-many-kinds-of-elements.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html

Also for advice id say if it's not immediately obvious then it's probably better to keep an open mind and meditate & learn what makes sense until one's power of understanding illuminates the truth as it culminates.

I'll take a look, at the links -- I'm curious because Forbes said and I quote "Inflation was proposed in the 1980s. But the idea of the multiverse similar to the one suggested by inflation has been along far longer in Buddhist thought."

One of Guatama Buddhas appellations is 'Teacher of the Devas'. I quote from that Access To Insight article (which is the Therevada perspective, & refers to the Pali canon):

The Buddha has directly seen the origins of Maha Brahma and
understands what it requires to be reborn in his world. In the
Brahmajāla sutra (DN 1) the Buddha describes how a supposed
Creator God came to believe himself omnipotent and how others came to
rely on his sovereignty. His description was based, not on speculation
or hearsay, but on his own direct knowledge. The Buddha explains that
when our world system disintegrates, as it regularly does after
extremely long periods of time, the lower sixteen planes are all
destroyed. Beings disappear from all planes below the seventeenth, the
plane of the Abhassara gods. Whatever beings cannot be born on the
seventeenth or a higher brahma plane then must take birth on the lower
planes in other remote world systems.
Eventually the world starts to re-form. Then a solitary being passes
away from the Abhassara plane and takes rebirth on the plane of Maha
Brahma. A palace created by his kamma awaits him there: "There he
dwells, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through
the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long
time." After ages pass, he becomes lonely and longs for other beings
to join him. It just so happens that shortly after the brahma starts
craving for company, other beings from the Abhassara plane, who have
exhausted their lifespans there, pass away and are reborn in the
palace of Brahma, in companionship with him.
Because these beings seemed to arise in accordance with the first
brahma's wish, he becomes convinced that he is the almighty God: "I am
the Great Brahma, the Vanquisher... the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
the Supreme Being." The other brahmas, seeing that he was already
present when they took birth in his world, accept his claim and revere
him as their creator.
Eventually this misconception of a Creator God spreads to the human
plane. One of the other brahmas passes away and is reborn here. He
develops concentration and learns to recollect his previous life with
Maha Brahma, but none of his lives before that. Recollecting that
existence he recalls that Maha Brahma was considered the "father of
all that are and are to be... permanent, stable, eternal." As he is
unable to remember further back, he believes this to be absolute truth
and propounds a theistic doctrine of an omnipotent Creator God

I am honestly surprised more Buddhists don't know about this account of Buddha teaching Maha Brahma.
You will likely also find the pali Brahmajāla sutra interesting for it's sections '18 beliefs about the past' and '44 beliefs about the future'.
You should read about Buddhist temporal cosmology for the origins & expected end of this particular universe or realm.
Edited to add, in response to comments
(I am moving these into the body of the answer because they make it more complete, & it will make this added content searchable)
@Orionixe:
the Buddhist cosmos is very large, and is described over very long eras, see Kalpas in Buddhist thought.
In Hindu thought:

"The life span of the universe is one 'maha kalpa' (311.04 trillion
years). This time span is one breath of 'Vishnu', who when he exhales,
thousands of universes emerge & one 'Brahma' is born in each
universe". From Hindu section of the same Wikipedia article

Buddha sees that Brahmas are reborn from other realms, as detailed in the Pali Brahmanjali sutra. So, there are other realms.
Now, the Many Worlds of quantum mechanics: I interpret the alternate selves, the different outcomes, as not separate, but as part of each of us. The real choices we didn't take, are part of us, along with those we did. I discussed thinking of processes as structures within higher dimensions here: How does biological evolution work in the block universe/b-theory of time?. We make moral decisions by imagining counterfactuals, if I do this = x, if I do that = y, so a valid model of alternatives is important ethically, as it is in quantum mechanics.
I find it interesting to imagine, we get to the end of our lives, and in the bardo some residue of conflicts, contradictions, attachments, makes us wish to restart our lives with some subtly different initial conditions. I feel this can link rebirth, and the multiverse. And I personally find it psychologically useful to imagine this as an exercise, along the lines of Nietzsche's idea of Eternal Return - which I would say is best regarded as a thought-experiment. Rebirth too can be used as a thought-experiment, that is without worrying whether it is a literal picture, but as a mirror or lense to look at our choices in a larger context, and to understand which of our actions will linger, as dissatisfactions, ie attachments.
Modern physics hasn't even decided what it means by multiverse, there is substantial dispute on the details, eg whether there are literally Many Worlds, or if they are meaningfully real when impacting measurements.
I do genuinely think Buddhist thought has useful guidance and insights, having been playing in this 'pool' a lot longer, of a vast ancient self-referencing cosmos.
But I also firmly believe, there will always be mysteries and wonders beyond our capacities - and there will always be frontiers for future people, because increasing our capacities can expand our experiences.
Many different options are on the table: 2 dimensions of time, 10 dimensions of space plus one of time, a fracture plane in the E8 hyperstructure, a closed timelike curve 'spinning out' universes, two universes expanding apart in opposite time directions. Too early to call, at least until we have a theory of quantum-gravity.
Scientific ideas about a multiverse/s were not based/inspired by Buddhist traditions, at all.
It's interesting that the Manhattan Project era physicists were becoming aware of Hindu thought:

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" - Oppenheimer,
quoting the Bhagavad Gita.

Murray Gell-Mann called his systemising of quarks the Eightfold Way, consciously reflecting the Buddhist phrase. I would link this to moving beyond the narrow geocentric cosmos of Western tradition, and searching for alternative ideas that resonate.
My understanding is knowledge of Buddhist thought has not been deeply or widely absorbed enough philosophically, to have more substantial impact on Western thinkers, yet. Largely because of a lack of texts until modern times, and still a lack of important commentaries (eg from Korean Goryeo era). But Buddhist and Jain contemplatives have been thinking about a vast and ancient cosmos for a long time, as part of their practice, and especially in later developments like The Flower Garland Sutra, there are tools for thinking about intersecting and interpenetrating realms and expanded notions of identity once conventional ideas about time are challenged (by the scope and complexity of the cosmos).

I'm confused, was that referring to multiverses or just this universe only?

Oh, i read this arcticle by Forbes, and they said this: "Inflation was proposed in the 1980s. But the idea of the multiverse similar to the one suggested by inflation has been along far longer in Buddhist thought. One school of Buddhism is the Huayan, also known as the Flower Garland school. The idea is that the flower garland, which represents all of reality, is made up of universes which all reflect one another."

So the scientific concept wasn't based/inspired by Buddhist traditions?

Refer the DN 27. Aggaññasutta which describes how life on earth came to be. (Starting from 3. Candimasūriyādipātubhāva).
In DN 1. Brahmajalasutta there is a mention about higher planes of existence - 3.1.2. Ekaccasassatavāda and it describes how the world is re-populated after forming. we can also get an idea of the time spans in discussion from section 3. Diṭṭhi.
In, SN 56.11. Dhammacakkappavattanasutta a description of different planes of existence getting the message of Dhamma (Dhamma cakka in motion) is described starting from human plane.
Even though there are discussions of different planes of existence, I haven't come across any direct references to multiverse though. Then again, I have only read a few sutta, so this should not be considered an all encompassing claim.

Can anyone expand on this, or simplify it?

Sure. I can simplify it into one word - 'superstition'.
In original Buddhism, the term "loka" ("world") refers to a state of mind, such as:

For it is in this fathom-long carcass with its perception and mind
that I describe the world, its origin, its cessation and the practice
that leads to its cessation.
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare sasaññimhi samanake
lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca
paṭipadanti.
AN 4.45

For those that misunderstand the above, again:

With the fading away of rapture, they enter and remain in the third
absorption.
pītiyā ca virāgā … pe … tatiyaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati—
This is the grounded path for realizing a world of perfect happiness.
ayaṃ kho sā, udāyi, ākāravatī paṭipadā ekantasukhassa lokassa
sacchikiriyāyā”ti.
MN 79

For example, if we read SN 11.5 about the 'deva' and 'asura' gods, the impression is they are debating about how to conduct affairs with people in earth. Thus, a 'deva' appears to be a benevolent ruler; where as an 'asura' appears to be a violent ruler.

One perceives 'the world' through the senses - however the senses themselves are in the world (lokasmiṃ). That does not imply the world is a state of mind, but that the mind is in the world. See the Rohitassa Sutta. Also, since you simplify this Adhidharma concept to "supersition", can I assume you also simplify the Abidharma teachings of causality, dependent origination and reincarnation to "superstition"? And if not, what criterion did you use to make the distinction?

your comment is wrong. it is appropriate you delete it and stop preaching. SN 12.44 clearly states the world arises from craving.

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble one.  And through what in the world do you perceive the world and conceive the world?
Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. - SN35.166

please refrain from posting wrong views here. thank you. SN 35.116 (not SN 35166 - lol - no concentration)) refers to "conceiving" the world with "mana" ("conceit"). or "mannati" ("imaging self").

Now that you have posted my and @deadmanposting' s comments as a separate question with the loaded tag "wrong view" here and someone else has given an excellent answer indicating they are also a valid interpretation, please follow your own advise on comment removal and preaching.

This is not Buddhism. There is no school of Buddhism that asserts these things. Sweep him out like dirt, take him out like garbage. Winnow like chaff those being led by ignorance, not aware that the defiled path leads to Niraya-hell.


text:
Is there a tremendous decrease in suffering at stream-entry?
Is it true that at stream-entry there is a profound decrease in the intensity of suffering perceived in samsara? If I'm not wrong, the Buddha does use the metaphor of a small clod of earth, as tiny as that can be picked up on a fingernail, to portray the amount of suffering one perceives after stream-entry, compared to the intense suffering, equivalent to the whole of earth, that a worldling feels in samsara?

Tremendous decrease, No. But the ability to manage thoughts and feelings is massively improved.

You quoted the Nakhasikha Sutta which states that suffering that remains for a person who has attained stream entry is like dirt under the fingernail, compared to suffering remaining for an ordinary worldling which is equivalent to the great earth.
For e.g. a person's immediate family members all die due to an unfortunate accident. This person may become very depressed and stay depressed for a long time, if he is an ordinary worldling. He would experience sadness (aversion) and delusion - two of the three poisons.
A stream enterer would still become depressed, but then he will quickly come to his senses and remember the teachings of the Buddha, that all is impermanent.
He is aware that his sorrow is caused by clinging to the idea that the deceased family members belong to him (the self, an idea conjured by the mind).
He understands how the idea of the self arises, due to dependent origination. He understands how dependent origination works.
He also understands that the notion of persons and family members are all reification/ objectification-classification/ concept proliferation (papanca), just like the idea of the self.
The stream enterer would be able to let go a lot sooner than the ordinary worldling.
The ordinary worldling may get stuck in mental loops that amplify sadness and delusion. The stream enterer experiences sadness but has the wisdom to not get stuck in mental loops.
In comparison, an arahant will not suffer at all, because he has completely uprooted ignorance through wisdom. For the stream enterer, ignorance is still there, but it has been reduced greatly by wisdom.
The stream enterer still has craving and clinging, but now he has attained sufficient wisdom to understand them and how they work. In comparison, an arahant has completely destroyed craving and clinging.
Reduction of suffering for a stream enterer doesn't mean that negative events or painful sensations do not happen anymore. It simply means that the stream enterer does not suffer from them very much, compared to the ordinary worldling. His ability to endure them has increased tremendously.

Thanks a lot ruben2020. It fills me with tremendous hope.

One who has attained the fruition of stream-entry or has arrived at such right views & convictions which generate the path for the attainment of fruition of stream entry is a great person who dwells in relative comfort.
One who goes beyond doubt lives with verified confidence and is considered a rich person even if wothout money.

Concise and precise. Thanks a lot @deadmanposting.

In some ways this is a trick question, because the meaning of suffering in the Buddhist sense is different from the meaning of suffering in the colloquial English sense. In the Buddhist sense, suffering is a mental phenomenon: an attachment that drives us and constantly reproduces the conditions we live in. When that kind of suffering is eliminated, it doesn't necessarily do much to change the conditions of our life in the short term, even though those conditions might be what we colloquially call 'suffering'.
So for a silly example, imagine a man who is obsessed with getting through a door, so much so that he hits it, kicks it, screams at it, throws himself bodily against it, bangs his head on it, over and over and over. Before stream-entry, that man is completely unified with the obsession of getting through that door: it is who he is and what he does, and he suffers for it in both the Buddhist and colloquial sense. After stream-entry, the man disentangles from the obsession. He sees the obsession as something separate from him, he understand that the overwhelming desire to get through the door is intrinsically hollow. He may still throw himself at the door out of habit; he certainly still feels the aches and bruises from his past efforts. But the mental (Buddhist) suffering abates quickly. He may even laugh at himself, and at the absurd act of banging his head on a door that he finds himself in the middle of.
Once one realizes the hollowness of the attachment, the karmic manifestations — that recurrent urge to kick and bash and scream against obstacles in the world — start to abate, but they may persist for some time and cause further worldly problems. But one doesn't suffer mentally over them in the same way, or to anything like the same extent.

That is very helpful Ted Wrigley. What you say fits in nicely with the two-dart metaphor used by the Buddha. The first dart may be inevitable but the second dart can perhaps be avoided to a large extent by the stream-enterer. This leads me to wonder as to whether the Arahant is actually able to cut off the effects of the first dart too. I don't know, but am inclined to believe that he is able to do so. Or, to put it the other way around, with selfhood totally annihilated, there is, perhaps, none to feel even the first dart.

@SushilFotedar: Well... yeah, an Arahant is capable of avoiding the first dart. If nothing else, the effective use of things like hypnotism and acupuncture in place of anesthetics demonstrates that pain-experience is not an inevitable consequence of injury. But we should be careful with this thought, because it easily twists back towards attachment. It opens the door to that 'macho guru' thing, where immunity to pain is held out as 'proof' of attainment: as though having cavities drilled without novocaine is a properly objective test of enlightenment...

@SushilFotedar: The thinking mind is tricky as a snake. Until it's properly tamed we have to be wary of all its twists and turns.

You are so very right. The twists and turns of the conceptualizing mind can trap one in a self-boosting trap. Thanks a lot friend.


text:
What do Buddhists believe in?
Does Buddhism say everything is an illusion? For Buddhist, are all other people just an illusion (philosophical zombies)? For example, when I talk to a Buddhist, he thinks I'm a philosophical zombie without minds,feeling,emotions? It turns out that all people in the world believe that other people have consciousness besides the Buddhism?I don't think this is true, so I want to clarify thanks

Buddhism teaches what is commonly called the human life form is comprised of five aggregates (SN 22.48; SN 22.22), namely, body, feelings (of pleasantness, unpleasantness & in-between), perceptions, mental formations (such as emotions & thinking) and consciousness via the six senses.
Buddhism teaches what is commonly called "the self" is merely a product of thinking and conditioning (SN 22.81) and is not ultimately real and is merely the manifesting of suffering (SN 5.10). Therefore, Buddhism teaches the five aggregates are "not-self" ("anatta"; SN 22.59).
Buddhism says anatta (not-self) is only the true nature of things but is also the understanding that leads to the ending of suffering because, according to the 1st Noble Truth (SN 56.11) all suffering is caused by the mind possessively clinging/attaching to things (the five aggregates; SN 56.11), both internally & externally, as "I", "me", "mine" and "self" (SN 22.1).
The sole purpose of the Buddhist teachings is to mitigate and end suffering (MN 22 paragraph 56). Here, it is taught nothing whatsoever should be attached to (as "I" & "mine"; MN 37).
In Hinduism, when it is taught "everything is an illusion", the purpose of this teaching is also to end suffering and made the mind feel more free & unattached.
In summary, Buddhism believes if you can live according to the Noble Eightfold Path you can live a life that is free from suffering.


text:
Why the students shout at the master (after meditation)?
I found following movie "Zen of Yamada Mumon Roshi" - here - after meditation, student go to master and at 4:45 the student start screaming on master. Then master takes breath and start talking (I don't understand what)

Can someone explain me in details - what actually is happened there?

Hah!  I've always wondered what someone outside of Zen would think if they ever saw what went on in the dokusan room.  What we have here is the Mu koan.  It goes like this - "A monk asked Josshu 'Does a dog have a Buddha nature?'  Josshu replies '"Muuuuuu!!!!!!!' (literally "does not; nothing; or no").  Now, of course, according to the Mahayana, everything has a Buddha nature.  What, oh what, could Josshu possibly mean by that?
In order to really know what this Mu thing is, you have to sit on the cushion.  You have to practice and practice deeply and sincerely sometimes for years.  The gist of what you have to do is say "Mu" on your out breath.  Take it all the way to the end of your exhalation.  At the end of the breath, maybe you notice a little bit of space (though, trust me, at first, you won't).  Over time, that little bit of space at the end of the breath becomes larger and larger.  Eventually, as your smaller self starts to drop away and you descend deeper and deeper into samadhi, it will start to overtake your entire being.  Then, we can say, the fun really starts.  That space at the end of your breath, that emptiness, that no-thing, that Mu, will one day begin to crackle with energy with no exertion of your mind's power.  When you are no longer in the way, Mu becomes a living, breathing, force that is like bottled lightening.  And like bottled lightening, it starts to look for a way out.  At this point, your body might begin to shake.  You might feel like you want to jump up and run around the zendo.  Maybe you start crowing like a rooster (that would be such a great answer!) .  Mu wants to express it self.  Mu wants to be seen.  Mu wants to be heard.  Now is the time where you present Mu to your teacher...which is what the student is doing in that video.
The really beauty of the Mu koan is that calling Mu - the act of presenting it - cannot be faked to someone who has sat in Mu themselves.  We know who's putting on airs.  You can hear it in their answer.  Someone who is truly in the energy of Mu need only open their mouth and Mu will come pouring out.  It's like turning on a faucet.  You don't reach into the tap and pull out the water.  The water comes out all of its own accord.  Someone who is not in Mu has to supply their own energy (which is the case with the student in the video).  Someone who is not in Mu may also be self conscious and block Mu from coming forth.
Don't worry if none of this makes any sense.  The only way it will is if you work with Mu yourself.  If you do, given enough time, I promise you that you will mingle your eyebrows with the patriarchs and speak the very same Mu that Josshu uttered more than 1200 years ago.

The key practice of Zen is recovering one's awareness of one's true nature, aka Buddha nature.
When one is confused one is conflicted. One is simultaneously inhibited and at the same time has some suppressed pride and suppressed anger/aggression.
When one is enlightened one has no conflict, one is at peace, there's harmony, everything is fluid and one is authentic, sincere, true, enjoying the direct attainment of suchness.
When one practices meditation to reach from one shore to the other shore, one engages a metaphorical washing machine. This machine does the laundry, processing one's suppressed pride and suppressed anger and other such things.
At some point halfway through the journey, one's connection with one's true self recovers enough that one becomes more sincere and more authentic than before. This is when one realizes that one does not have to be suppressed anymore and can in fact let oneself loose and yell at the Zen master. This is a joyful event. The master watches very carefully and if he sees that indeed the student broke through to his true self, and is not just faking it or indulging the ego, the master approves silently, using just the eyes.
It doesn't mean yelling at one's teacher is good. What's good is breaking through from being fake and conflicted to being authentic and harmonious. A little drama during this process is okay.


text:
Which sutta? The Buddha says monks missing out on pleasures of lay life and pleasures of holy life
Which pali sutta is this?
I think it's in MN somewhere.
The Buddha says monks missing out on pleasures of lay life and the pleasures of holy life.
The idea being that their practice is such that they're not getting jhana (pleasures of holy life), and they're deprived of the pleasures of the lay life (food, sex, etc), so they're just suffering.

You're probably thinking about Dhammapada 155-156 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

Neither living the chaste life
nor gaining wealth in their youth,
they waste away like old herons
in a dried-up lake
depleted of fish.
Neither living the chaste life
nor gaining wealth in their youth,
they lie around,
misfired from the bow,
sighing over old times.

Alternative translation here by Ven. Buddharakkhita:

Those who in youth have not led the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, languish like old cranes in the pond without fish.

Those who in youth have not lead the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, lie sighing over the past, like worn out arrows (shot
from) a bow.

Additional references include:

Iti 91: so by such a simile do I speak about this person: he has missed out on the enjoyments of a householder, yet he does not fulfil the purpose of recluseship.
SN22.80:7.4: I say that person is just like this. They’ve missed out on the pleasures of the lay life, and haven’t fulfilled the goal of the ascetic life.

I'm pretty sure there is at least another one, more plainly stated not in verse, elsewhere in the suttas. But this ref. is great! It is definitely an answer to the question.

Also:
iti91:2.10: I say that person is just like this. They’ve missed out on the pleasures of the lay life, and haven’t fulfilled the goal of the ascetic life.
SN22.80:7.4: I say that person is just like this. They’ve missed out on the pleasures of the lay life, and haven’t fulfilled the goal of the ascetic life.

@OyaMist Please add them into an answer. Thanks. I also found Iti 91 here.

Thanks. Added references.

@OyaMist I mean you can create a new answer and add to it.

Oh. I actually liked your answer and was just adding more to it. Please edit your answer as you see fit.

A reddit commenter found the sutta I was thinking of, which is SN 22.80 (quoted below).

“And although this son of a good family has gone forth in this way, he
is covetous, with strong passion for sensual desires, with a mind of
ill will, of corrupt resolves, his mindfulness muddled, unalert,
unconcentrated, his mind distracted, loose in his sense faculties.
Just as a log from a funeral pyre, burning at both ends, smeared with
excrement in the middle, fills no use as timber either in the village
or in the wilderness: I speak of this person with this comparison. He
has missed out on the enjoyments of the householder, and yet does not
fulfill the goal of the contemplative life.

But there probably are more references too, I'll post a summary when we collect them all.


text:
I need to know the names of the angels and their actions in Buddhism
I have a research and I need to know all the names of angels in different religions and their actions, and since I am an Arab, my sources are not enough and I need the names of the angels in Buddhism

There is no matching concept for the Abrahamic angelic doctrine, because the existence of god(s) is quite irrelevant to the goal of Buddhism: enlightenment, which can only be gained through personal experience.
The only two concepts that could be confused with angels are devas (the same root as our word "divine") and bodhisattvas. However they differ in a number of key properties with the idea of angels.
A deva in Buddhism is one of many different types of non-human beings who share the godlike characteristics of being more powerful, longer-lived, and, in general, much happier than humans, although the same level of veneration is not paid to them as to buddhas (humans). However, they are still mortal and unenlightened. In Buddhism, the human form is the primary form for attainment.
Bodhisattvas in most schools of Mahayana Buddhism are humans who attained enlightenment, but chose not to enter Nirvana, but go back into the world to help other beings gain attainment.

There are also brahmas.

A brahma is a deva in the heavenly realms of Saṃsāra

Possibly the most important angel (deva) in Buddhism is Brahmā Sahampati, who urged the newly awakened Buddha to teach (after the Buddha made the decision to not teach people).

Then, bhikkhus, the Brahmā Sahampati knew with his mind the thought in
my mind and he considered: ‘The world will be lost, the world will
perish, since the mind of the Tathāgata, accomplished and fully
enlightened, inclines to inaction rather than to teaching the Dhamma.’
Then, just as quickly as a strong man might extend his flexed arm or
flex his extended arm, the Brahmā Sahampati vanished in the
Brahma-world and appeared before me. He arranged his upper robe on one
shoulder, and extending his hands in reverential salutation towards
me, said: ‘Venerable sir, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma, let
the Sublime One teach the Dhamma. There are beings with little dust in
their eyes who are wasting through not hearing the Dhamma. There will
be those who will understand the Dhamma.’
MN 26

Check out sn11.3;

"Monks, I shall relate a former incident. There arose a battle between the Devas (gods) and Asuras. Then Sakka, the Lord of the devas, addressed the devas of the Tavatimsa heaven thus:
"'Happy ones, if the devas who have gone to the battle should experience fear or terror or suffer from hair standing on end, let them behold the crest of my own banner. If you do so, any fear, terror or hair standing on end arising in you will pass away.
"'If you fail to look up to the crest of my banner, look at the crest of the banner of Pajapati, King of gods. If you do so, any fear, terror or hair standing on end arising in you will pass away.
"'If you fail to look up to the crest of Pajapati, King of the gods, look at the crest of the banner of Varuna, King of the gods. If you do so, any fear, terror or hair standing on end arising in you will pass away.'

There are several stories about the actions of Sakka and a whole collection of texts is dedicated to him , it's called Sakkasamyutta found in the Samyutta Nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka.
There are many names of gods in the Atanatiya Sutta;
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.32.0.piya.html
There are several dialogues in which devas participate in the https://suttacentral.net/sn1 Devata Samyutta
Also in https://suttacentral.net/sn2 Devaputta Samyutta
Also many are scattered throughout the other collections.
There are many stories about various non-humans who do things, too many to list here and you can definitely add more details as to narrow it down as to your interest.
Here is a good one;

Then the Ajakalāpaka spirit — wanting to cause fear, terror, & horripilation in the Blessed One — went to him and, on arrival, not far from him, three times made a commotion & pandemonium: "Commotion & pandemonium! Commotion & pandemonium! Commotion & pandemonium! — That's a goblin for you, contemplative!"
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
When,
with regard to his own qualities,[1]
a brahman is one
who has gone beyond,
he transcends this goblin
and his pandemonium.

There are several which name a spirit in a similar context.
If you want to list all Buddhist deities it is a lot of work as there are many deities and many schools of Buddhism which often have different deities and sometimes use different names for those that are common.

How are you doing with the Abrahamic angels? I wrote a post about angels, outlining how that word is from the Greek for messenger, and in Christian theology they are a job rather than a specific type or groups of being - angels are messengers and agents of divinity: are-angels-rational-or-irrational-beings There are various heavenly beings like cherubim, seraphim & orephim, which can act as angels. But so can humans, or their manifestations as humans.
By this understanding of angels as the messengers or agents of the divine plan, in Mahayana Buddhism (Chinese, Korean, Japanes & Tibetan) the equivalent are bodhisattvas.
The oldest and most widespread boddhisattva venerated across the Mahayana world is Manjushri, bodhisattva of transcendent wisdom. His attribute is said to be a 'diamond sword', for cutting attachments.
The second most widespread, is Avalokitesvara bodhisattva of compassion, who is said to embody the compassion of all Buddhas, and who's attribute is to be present in 'the thousand hands and eyes of compassion', so is often represented with many arms and a tower of heads.
After these, the schools differ.
In China, Korea, and Japan, it would be Ksitigharba bodhisattva, 'earth store bodhisattva', who's attribute is a lantern staff to break down the doors of hell.
In Tibetan Buddhism it would be Vajrapani, protector of Buddhas and manifestor of their power, who's attribute is the vajra or lightning-hammer, representing both sudden insight and power, and also called 'bodhisattva of secrets' as guardian of the initiate tantra paths.
There are a number of others, but I would describe these as the leading ones, with the widest observences & prayers to. They have different names in each different language, so I have just given the Sanskrit.


text:
what those wrong views mean?
Middle length suttas often include following descriptions of wrong views (MN 44, MN 109, MN131, MN 138):

regards material form as self, or self as possessed of material form,
or material form as in self, or self as in material form.

(similar descriptions are given for feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness. To limit the scope, I'd like to focus on the material part for now, and see whether I understand those insightful categories (as I have a feeling that this slips through the words).
For the sake of simplicity I interpret: regards material form as self is basically I am a collection of atoms, self as possessed of material form: this is hard for me to understand, maybe as eager to have many houses and fat bank account?, material form as in self: I can be only certain about things that are taking place in my head? self as in material form: hard to understand.

For the sake of simplicity I interpret: regards material form as self
is basically I am a collection of atoms

The wrong view is: "The body is a/the self; I am the body; the body is me".
The right view is: "The body is a collection of atoms (elements/dhatu)."

self as possessed of material form: this is hard for me to understand,
maybe as eager to have many houses and fat bank account?

Yes, the above appears correct. The wrong view is: "I have a body; I own gold & silver".

self as in material form: hard to understand.

The word "form" ("rūpasmiṃ") in Pali, above, is in locative case. The above appears to mean to regard the self as located in the body. Possibly, for example, "my liver; my finger; or my heart"; or the common belief: "the soul/self abides in the body".
In Hinduism and also probably later Buddhism, there is found the terms "dehi" and "deha". "Deha" means the "envelope or shell" the "dehi" dwells in. "Dehi" means the "soul" or "creature" dwelling in the "deha". For example, in the Bhagavad Gita:

vāsānsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya navāni gṛihṇāti naro ’parāṇi tathā
śharīrāṇi vihāya jīrṇānya nyāni sanyāti navāni dehī
As a person sheds worn-out garments and wears new ones, likewise, at
the time of death, the soul casts off its worn-out body and enters a
new one.

Or the Christian Bible says: "You are the body of Christ. Each one of you is a part of it."

material form as in self: I can be only certain about things that are
taking place in my head?

I assume the word "self" ("attani") above is also in locative case. This appears to mean believing: "I am made of mind & body and the body is a part of myself".
For example, when my uncle passed away, at the funeral, i ended up in the car of the Christian Orthodox Priest travelling to the cemetery. The priest said to me it was wrong that my father (an Orthodox) was cremated because in the Orthodox religion they believe the person is made up of both the soul and the body rather than merely the soul. Therefore, it is improper for an Orthodox to cremate the body of the deceased. The view of the priest here was the self is made up of two parts and the body is part of the self. This appears to be an example of: "form in the self".
The Pali is below:

rūpaṃ (nominative or accusative) attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ (nominative), rūpasmiṃ (locative) vā attānaṃ.
They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.
Sujato translation

Very insightful. Especially about the locative case of the word. Glad, my mother tongue had it, so I could follow most of your description so easily. You pointed out (again) how important the translations are. The Sujato translation is extremely short and extremely insightful. And this goes so nicely with idea of the nonself.

thank you.......