text:
Are Heaven(s) and Hell(s) literal? How do we know that they're real & actually exist?
I'm very close to becoming a Buddhist, of some strand of Mahayana, but I am having some difficulties with the concept of Heaven(s) and Hell(s).
I already know that some such as Hakuin Ekaku of the Rinzai Japanese Zen Buddhism viewed Heaven(s) and Hell(s) as a state of mind. I've heard the same about the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy (e.g. Nagarjuna's views). This is a view that I can accept, but I don't think its common in Mahayana sects.
Nevertheless, from what I've seen though I wasn't able to confirm, it seems that for many, if not most sects and schools of Mahayana Buddhism view Heaven(s) and Hell(s) as real and literal places.
Therefore, my question is whether they're actually literal about how do we know that they're real if we are genuinely unable to verify that they exist, either logically or empirically via experimentation. Also, if you know of any Mahayana sects which view Heaven(s) and Hell(s) as psychological states of mind, do let me know please.

A big, tough samurai once went to see a little monk.
“Monk!”
He barked, in a voice accustomed to instant obedience.
“Teach me about heaven and hell!”
The monk looked up at the mighty warrior and replied with utter
disdain,
“Teach you about heaven and hell? I couldn’t teach you about anything.
You’re dumb. You’re dirty. You’re a disgrace, an embarrassment to the
samurai class. Get out of my sight. I can’t stand you.”
The samurai got furious. He shook, red in the face, speechless with
rage. He pulled out his sword, and prepared to slay the monk. Looking
straight into the samurai’s eyes, the monk said softly,
“That’s hell.”
The samurai froze, realizing the compassion of the monk who had risked
his life to show him hell! He put down his sword and fell to his
knees, filled with gratitude. The monk said softly,
“And that’s heaven.”
The Little Monk and the Samurai: A Zen Parable

But, let's have a look at the binaries you present

Are Heaven(s) and Hell(s):
literal vs metaphorical
real vs not real
actually existing vs fake/made up (implied)
verifiable vs not
psychological states vs physical

Now, what category is money? It has physical manifestations like paper or coins. It can be digital. Fiat currencies trade debt tokens, so it depends crucially on bookeeping of debts. Bank runs, show confidence in it is crucial. It's a medium of exchange, so barring inflation and so on, once the exchanges are finished the money transactions are no longer relevant. People want to hoard it. Is money real? Made-up? Physical? Psycological? Actual and verifiable?
It is an agreement, a collective fiction, that we have declared real - and it's control over our lives, is very real.
So be careful what binaries you assume. Is the self, real? When is a story 'real'?
For me the big danger of rushing to judge Buddhist and Indian cosmology as simply real or not-real, is in what kind of mind we listen to it with. Do we assume it was ignirant peasants struggling to make sense of the world? Or dedicated spiritual practicioners trying to connect insights to people of their time?
My favourite metaphor for dependent origination is Indra's Net, the net with a mani jewel of a mind at each junction. I interpret it also as a way to picture reality as a peer-to-peer network, with 'updates' about how to see the world passing through the network. So in this picture the hells and heavens can be real to people in the Buddhas time, and to be taken seriously and try to understand them as they describe them. We are more comfortable with switching between modes now, different kinds of story, different types of truth. But how we categorise, can often often have hidden implications, that seek to impose a view of the world we have already decided is correct. So the lesson I have learned from issues of Buddhist cosmology is, keep an open mind, keep listening for insights, don't rush to pass judgement.

In my understanding, heaven and hell may exist for real, but they definitely exist in terms of our state of mind. For example, A person born in poverty who due to circumstances gives rise to excess greed and attachment to self spend his life miserable or in a hellish state of mind. on the other hand for example a prince of a king, or son of a president in modern times, grows up quite comfortably. All his demands are met, he has no fear of Physical harm caused by others, he is secure financially for the rest of his life, he can have sex with the most beautiful women. This person would be in a joyful state of mind, or in heavenly mind state.
I believe the literal heaven and hell are extension of these everyday states of mind, which most likely exist after death. This is told by the Buddha, and if we are to assume that he was fully enlightened, this is pretty much guarantee to be true (unless the texts were manipulated EXTREMELY).

Thank you for your reply. But does this not merely amount to an appeal to authority fallacy (and as you mentioned, there could also be epistemic issues with the text being manipulated)?

@setszu I'm not sure why "appeal to authority" is a "fallacy" -- for example, what's false about this statement: "Ancient Carthage was near modern-day Tunis, and I know that's so because my dad was a professor of Roman history, and he told me and I've seen his maps"?

@ChrisW Because it doesn't really provide a justification of any kind that is useful to one. Anyway, doesn't the Buddha teach to verify the truths for ourselves?

@setszu I think it's normal, not wrong, to learn from authorities, at least until you "know for yourself" (which leads to the question of who you'll accept as an authority and why).

@ChrisW Perhaps you're right. The topic about appeal to authority is a nuanced one.

@setszu My point wasn't appeal to authority, it was merely meant as a side point. On the matter of what Buddha said according to you, if that were the case I dont see what's the point in you asking the question here. Nothing that anyone can say will make you see heaven/hell, only deep practice can make you know them if they exist. So why ask question here?

{Anyway, doesn't the Buddha teach to verify the truths for ourselves? –} yes, and Buddha says how to look in to these heaven and hell and verify yourself. Don't just believe, verify yourself.

i feel compelled to reply reading the answers.
Hell and heaven are very much real in the Buddhist religion, as well as in every other religion that i know of. There might be slight differences in their descriptions, but overall those 2 concepts are very tangible and clearly real, not 'a philosophical reflection of your own mind".
The buddha gave lengthy description of all the realms that exist, including hell. The difference with buddhism and other religions is that heaven isn't considered permanent and therefore satisfying as the devas that live there ultimate move to other realms, even if it takes extreme length of times.
Should i need to give a quote? i don't really feel like i need to because this is such a basic belief of buddhism, there is even a word for it : niraya (hell).

Buddha never ave a whole sermon on the afterlife or cosmology. The whole system of realms & categories of being has been patched together from what is mentioned while discussing other topics. Plus later additions & elaborations, especially in Tibetan Buddhism. Is the self real? Buddhism has always dealt with different levels & contexts of how 'real' is used, eg Kisa Gotami & the parable of the mustard seed. The organising principle of Buddhism is not demarcating real from not real, but insight from ignorance, in the service of waking up to unshakeable liberation from the causes of suffering

Heaven & hell are literal states of mind therefore are literally real, as the Pali Suttas literally describe below:

"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the
opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a hell named 'Six
Spheres of Contact.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is
undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing;
disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the
ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever
flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation
one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there
with the intellect is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never
pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable.
"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the
opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a heaven named 'Six
Spheres of Contact.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is
desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable,
never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear...
Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one
tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches
there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the
intellect is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never
displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable.
"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life."
SN 35.135

This is regarding the realm of desires, of preferences, & so the quote does not address the full extent of Buddhism.

Having no memories of past lives in heaven, hell or anywhere else presents a challenge. How can one know about and inspect heaven and hell directly here and now?
To address this, monks have approached the Buddha for tangible, verifiable instruction. Here we have Venerable Upavāna asking the Buddha:

SN35.70:1.3: “Sir, they speak of ‘a teaching apparent in the present life’.
SN35.70:1.4: In what way is the teaching apparent in the present life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves?”
SN35.70:2.1: “Upavāna, take a mendicant who sees a sight with their eyes. They experience both the sight and the desire for the sight.
SN35.70:2.2: There is desire for sights in them, and they understand that.
SN35.70:2.3: Since this is so,
SN35.70:2.5: this is how the teaching is apparent in the present life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.

In other words, we can know that the eye is drawn to desirable sights. Would that be a glimpse of heaven? Or would it be a glimpse of hell? Loved ones die.
Later, the sutta introduces the perspective of a Buddhist monk:

SN35.70:5.1: Take a mendicant who sees a sight with their eyes. They experience the sight but no desire for the sight.
SN35.70:5.2: There is no desire for sights in them, and they understand that.
SN35.70:5.3: Since this is so,
SN35.70:5.5: this is how the teaching is apparent in the present life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.

Heaven and hell are tangled up with desire and craving and consequences. Buddhism is about the about the end of suffering, not so much about heaven or hell. Consider the following teaching from MN1 with respect to the previous quotes about what we can inspect and see for ourselves.

MN1:194.3: Why is that?
MN1:194.4: Because he has understood that taking pleasure is the root of suffering,

Perhaps the question about heaven and hell is truly a question about the nature of suffering, its root cause, the end of suffering and the path to the end of suffering?

You might find this sutta interesting -- Apannaka Sutta: A Safe Bet (MN 60).
It's like "Pascal's Wager". From the Translator's Introduction:

The Buddha's main pragmatic argument is that if one accepted his teachings, one would be likely to pay careful attention to one's actions, so as to do no harm. This in and of itself is a worthy activity regardless of whether the rest of the path was true. When applying this argument to the issue of rebirth and karmic results, the Buddha sometimes coupled it with a second pragmatic argument that resembles Pascal's wager: If one practices the Dhamma, one leads a blameless life in the here-and-now. Even if the afterlife and karmic results do not exist, one has not lost the wager, for the blamelessness of one's life is a reward in and of itself. If there is an afterlife with karmic results, then one has won a double reward: the blamelessness of one's life here and now, and the good rewards of one's actions in the afterlife. These two pragmatic arguments form the central message of this sutta.

So -- whether it's true or not, the doctrine explains is a certain (moral) way to behave.
IMO that -- how to behave -- is the important part of the doctrine.
Another part of the doctrine is this:

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

Bits of the doctrine which I don't understand or can't prove, can't see (I leave aside in what I call a mu state) -- I don't feel obligated to express an opinion for or against.
That's partly to be "not wrong" and partly to avoid the "false dilemma" fallacy (which, I don't know, might come from trying to answer the wrong question).
Generally though -- instead of asking, "Is this true, is it real?" -- I prefer to ask myself, "Given that this was said, what does it mean?"
Perhaps you do the same, you say you can "accept" viewing it as (i.e. ascribing it) a "state-of-mind" meaning.

But the Buddha clearly teaches us to follow truth, albeit still not get attached to it as far as I understand. Yes, I can accept those concepts as a state-of-mind type thing, but I'm not sure if that's how the Buddhism of the Buddha viewed it. Anyway, do you know of any Mahayana sects which promote such a view?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, @setszu, but this Q&A site is not meant for discussion. I see you are posting numerous comments but in our experience it rarely leads to productive conversations. Please keep this in mind: posting your answers and reading answers posted by others is what this site is for, not dialog.

@AndriyVolkov Okay, I'm sorry. Thanks for letting me know, I'll try to do better in the future!

There are actual logic you can contemplate to confirm heaven and hells existence.
Firstly, if you observe reality, this world, this universe, you will find that all their really is, all phenomena, is the experience of sensory input.
The 18 sensory consciousnesses.
In laymans terms that means that everything is created by the mind.
So in turn, anything that you can experience via these consciousnesses, can be experienced by these consciousnesses. Meaning anything that you can imagine is able to be experienced.
So can you imagine hell...heaven...different planets, realms, different sentience, different species. List goes on. If you can experience it within the mind, it can be experienced via the other senses. As the 6th sense (mental cognition) is a combination of the first 5.

Really awesome argument. .

It is how I originally contemplated the possibilities.

Yes. So in turn, anything that you can experience via these consciousnesses, can be experienced by these consciousnesses. Meaning anything that you can imagine is able to be experienced.  That summarises the basic nature of the universe.

That is the point, not just this universe but all existence. in essence it is sunyata, phenomena is dependently reliant on sentience to exist and this sentience relies upon the senses to experience phenomena, in humans case (the 3 sets of 6) 18 sensory consciousnesses. This is so logically irrefutable that for me it instantly made me recognise that the way Buddha explained reality and the freedom from it, is correct. It is effectively idealism,

I will give my quick analysis. Unfortunately hell is just a label, a silly word. But if the Buddhist view is the triple world - kamaloka (desire realm), rupaloka (form), arupaloka (forlmess) - and no other worlds mentioned, or only subcategories of these, then I would guess, just from this alone, hell is the lowest of the three, or hell belongs to the lowest of the three.  The lowest would be kamaloka, the desire realm.  I can't see how one can experience hell without a body, neither dreaming without one, so I believe kamaloka to be the human realm and the gross region.
Then I also follow the news and some of it penetrates into my reality, which makes me certain that there is hell on earth.

This answer quotes suttas mentioned in this other answer.
For those who have not yet overcome self-view, it makes sense to adopt the right view with effluents, siding with merit, as defined in MN 117. This includes belief in rebirth, heaven and hell, as well as believing that one is the heir of one's kamma according to AN 5.57. This will result in avoiding misconduct.
Based on MN 38 and SN 22.85, there is no rebirth of a continually existing consciousness, which is what people usually think of, when they talk about "rebirth".
Based on AN 6.61 and SN 44.9 quoted in this answer, rebirth refers to the cessation of the old mental individual identity and the arising of the new mental individual identity, from one mind-moment to the next mind-moment. The mind-moments cease and arise along with contact. So, this happens when one contact ceases and a new one arises. Craving is what sustains the continuity from one mental individual identity to the next.
Heaven and hell are places of mind in my opinion. Loving kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity are called brahmaviharas or abodes of Brahma. I think it's no coincidence. When one adopts these, they would be reborn now in the abode of Brahma.
From Piya Tan's commentary on Pariḷāha Sutta (SN 56.43):

2.1 The Pariḷāha Sutta refers to a hell named “the great burning” (mahā,pariḷāha) [§1], and describes it as a state when all our senses
and sensing bring us only pain and suffering [§2]. There is no mention
here that it is a place or some spatial dimension. From the tone of
the Sutta, it is clear that this refers to our own mental state —
a karmic state where what we fear most, what pains us most, will
overwhelm us as a private reality when the conditions are right. In
this sense, all the hells are our own creation, tailor-made, private
and very real.

Do you know any Mahayana sects other than perhaps Nichiren which have the view of Heaven and Hell that you are promoting?

@setszu I do not know of modern Mahayana sects that have it. Maybe the ancient schools of Yogachara or Chittamatra? In any case I'm implying that there are layers of truth. The superficial layer has literal rebirth for the novice and the deeper layer has rebirth as a place of mind for the advanced.

They actually exist as a state to be reborn, and also state of mind we can experience in this life.  By the way, the animal world is also something we can be reborn as, and animals exist!

Concept of Heaven and Hell in Buddhism is very different form other common views in the world (as of my experience with Buddhism)
According to the Buddhism Heaven and Hell are not strange places that are eternal or with being that are eternal(eternal on Heaven or Hell); they're just places where some living beings get born.
Like Earth.(but not necessarily other planets)
According to Buddhism there are 31 living planes.
Human realm is one in this 31.
So it's actually rather higher (happiness) place than human realm, not some eternal place.
In these higher places still, beings live there get born (not same as humans), die(not same as humans), but live long with more resources to be happy with.
Same for hell with opposite properties.
According to Buddhism, you can see heaven and hell even before you die or go to Nirvana.
Use Samatha Bhavana to concentrate mind to level 1(there are 4/5 levels) and you can see heaven and hell your self.
Higher and higher you achieve, you will see more broadly.
Now some people will argue that, that's not correct. And that they achieved Dhayana;  but didn't see such worlds.
There could be few reasons for that :-

they didn't achieve actual Dhayana, but they think that they did (like 95%)
they achieved it only for breaf period of time (4%)
they didn't focus on looking into these worlds (1%)

This is a completely different view from Western view of Haven and Hell.
And lot of unbelievers of this are people who learned some Buddhism online or using some books or from some monks, and they ether

didn't hear these (from those sources)
didn't believe them
didn't study them thinking they are stupid (

mostly people who came to Buddhism because of lack of western religion realness
only came to Buddhism thinking it's a way of living
people who came into Buddhism only for guidance of living
)

Also, if you know of any Mahayana sects which view Heaven(s) and Hell(s) as psychological states of mind, do let me know please.

It's a psychological states of mind and also place actually exists.
(at deeper level these places get created by psychological states of mind of bad thinking of everyone)

According to my opinion, Mahayana is a divination of bace methods and intentions of Buddha.(just my opinion ; you can have different ones)
Theravada is more general and closer to the original teachings.( at least that's the situation in Sri Lanka)
Reason :-
Buddha didn't intended to his every follower to be a Buddha like himself.
Thanks . ☸.
Questions are welcome.

I mean this is my understanding. Some people may have other views of this. It's okay.

As far as we can tell reality doesn't include Heavens or Hells. Certainly not as they are described in traditional Buddhist texts.
Heaven, for example, was said to be "above the sky". We've been up there and there is only radiation soaked vacuum above the sky. A more hellish place is difficult to imagine, as space is utterly inimical to life. Heaven is definitely not above the sky in any real sense.
Hell was supposedly subterranean, and again we can be sure that beneath our feet is only rock and a nickel-iron core. No one lives down there.
If you ask Buddhists you will find a range of views, for example

That rebirth is not true in any sense.
That rebirth is true only in a symbolic sense.
That rebirth is true in a literal sense.

I'm in the first camp. Rebirth is a religious ideology from Iron Age India that cannot survive be sustained enquiry (such as you will find in my book Karma and Rebirth Reconsidered).
Amongst the last group however, there is still little or no agreement on how one can reconcile the doctrine dependent arising, which forbids any kind of continuity, and the doctrine of karma which requires long term continuity.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

@Pycm Please continue in the chat above and not comment here.

I am not sure what the OP is aiming to achieve with the knowledge of heaven or hell, be it real or imaginary. Is it merely curiosity or trying to find a deeper meaning and motivation in life?
My observations of people facing death (whom I knew) revealed different behaviours. There are those who are peaceful in the face of death (very few). These are the ones who believed they lived a good life serving others selflessly, not harming themselves or others and tried to give their best to live an honest life.
Then, there are many who are anxious, fearful and wanted more time. And there are occasionally some who clung dearly to life even when their bodies no longer allowed them to do so. One can see heaven and hell experienced in those last days.
Strangely, I find that many times, it is not the faith that they profess in that, perhaps, explained the differences. Of course, if asked about their beliefs, there will be various faiths and views. But when recalling how these people lived and their conduct when alive and how they subsequently respond to their impending death, there appears to be a similarity. Those who accept their death with peace and tranquillity, lived a relatively 1) blameless life and are 2) willing to let go and not ask for more.
Concepts, views and beliefs (such as heaven and hell, ghosts and devas, etc), all these pales compared to what we directly experience. Have we experienced hell-like states in our lives? I believe if someone had, they knew they don’t need to go to hell to know what hell is. Or heavenly states when the mind is at peace and truly contented. And this is not because of abundant food, wealth, fame, power or anything that the world has to offer.
Does becoming a Buddhist guarantee a place in heaven? Will a belief in heaven and hell ensure that we will be virtuous and well-behaved human beings? In my younger days, I knew the concept about studying hard in order to do well in my exams. But it was the experience of failing the mock exams (a month or more before the actual) that scared the pants off me. It made me humbly asked (or beg) my brighter classmates to teach and share with me their study methods. I diligently followed their advice and studied like mad. Finally, I managed to pass the actual exams with good enough results to go to the senior high that I wanted. I was never a good student. I hope I can be a better Buddhist and not wait until the last moment.....then again, this is yet another concept.

No place either in heaven or hell or earth or water or air or fire or space is permanent.
Just as the realm of earth exists , water world also exists, air world also exists , fire world also exists , space world also exists.
Similarly realms of heaven and hell also exists.
However , knowing the nature of Earth , it needs to be discarded as not me , mine or myself. Knowing the nature of water , it needs to discarded as not me , mine or myself. Knowing the nature of Air , it needs to be discarded as not me , mine or myself. Knowing the nature of fire , it needs to be discarded as not me , mine or myself. Knowing the nature of space , it needs to be discarded as not me , mine or myself. Knowing the nature of heaven , it needs to be discarded as not me , mine or myself. Knowing the nature of hell , it needs to be discarded as not me, mine or myself.

But how do we know that they're real? If they're material places like the Earth, then where are they located?

@setszu All realms exists in the mind. Realms of crocodile , realms of monkey , realms of bible , realms of devil etc …

Ok, but are they solely in the mind, like for example, me experiencing the image of a dinosaur rotating in my head (I'm quite sure that there isn't a literal dinosaur in my head), or is it mind-dependent in the same way that color or light is, e.g. photons when they reach my eye and are processed by my mind, seem to create a subjective experience of light and color, but it still interacts with something that seems external to me, which is photons. Are realms like the former or like the latter?

@setszu All realms including yours and mine are created in the mind. It results from the combination of 4 great elements namely , earth , water, air and fire. There is kitchen where all dream like realities are cooked. However they are all impermanent. Nothing lasts forever. In a way you are someone else’s dream but this dream is bound to be the source of suffering. I will not go into scientific details because it is a lengthy subject.

Ok, but can you give me at least recommend me a book or something like that on this topic so that I know what to read and research?

@setszu There is no book in my knowledge which gives a detailed knowledge about the kitchen of life. However as Buddha suggested we should focus on getting rid of suffering and for that
https://suttacentral.net/?lang=en Is  sufficient.


text:
Dreams more "real" than "real" life
I have noticed last few months that my dreams are very real. This I say because if I recall a memory from some dream that I remember, that memory is usually more clear and stronger than most everyday life memories. I remember that better, coz I seem to be more "alive" in the dream.
If right now I think about dreaming from yesterday night, I know that during the dream I was more alive then I am right now.
I know this might be related to lucid dreaming, but I am not lucid dreamer - I haven't had a lucid dream ever.
What do you think could be going on here? Have you been in a similar situation?

I have to ask -- I can see this might be a topic of conversation with a friend, but in what way is it a question about Buddhist doctrine or practice?

I agree. This question has nothing to do with Buddhism.

@ChrisW With all due respect, I fail to understand how is this not buddhism related when buddhism cheifly relates to mind and mental phenomena. Awareness, nature of reality etc. are among the centralmost aspects of buddhism when practiced correctly; thus this question should belong here. also who is better to answer this than buddhists who are supposed to have deepest understanding in the world of awareness related phenomena.

In theory, "good" answers may be "backed up" by references/citations, or by personal experience. But not every question about personal experience is on-topic -- for example a question like, "Have you ever been frightened by an animal?" -- even though you could say this is a topic mentioned in the suttas and therefore ought to be on-topic. It's not that dreaming isn't mind-related, it's that the question isn't asking anything except like "What do you think?" and "Have you experienced this?"

Perhaps I might have "been in a similar situation" but even if I have, I'm not sure my answer would be on-topic -- because the topic of this site is "Buddhism" and not my subjective experience of dreaming -- and so I "blame" the question or question it, rather, I don't see what it's asking that's explicitly related to Buddhism. Someone else might be able to answer it as-is (so I didn't close it), but apparently other people too agreed (by upvoting my comment) that they're not sure how it is, currently, a question about Buddhist doctrine or practice.

I've had meditation visions and lucid dreams that were more vivid, sharp, and clear than normal human experience where I wear glasses.
In those visions, I don't need glasses and have better than perfect vision.
This kind of thing you're talking about, hyper realisim more "real" than human life which seems like a dream in comparison, is also commonly reported from people who've had near death experiences where their mind separated from the body.
The fact that you retain memory from you dreams clearly doesn't seem normal though.
Unless you're reviewing those memories right after you wake up and copying the data from your mental body memory into your human brain.
If you frame your question differently, in terms of the khandhas of perception and  volition as agents of memory, between mental body and waking life body, then I think that would address the supposed non Buddhist elements.

Thank you for your insightful answer. I am not sure about the Khandhas etc as I am not super well read in formal literature. I, however, have had an extremely deep experience on LSD when I became awake and the everyday life became dream like. I also saw infinite ocean of consciousness etc in that state, and saw that I will never die or I was never born. That thing lasted months..but I still have remnant effects. I am saying this because you mentioned near death experiences, and for me it was quite that.

Also, to clarify, I don't really retain all the memories. It is just one or two glimpses out of a few dreams but they are quite real and vivid when i recall them. More than my own key real life memories from the past.
Could you please elaborate or refer me to some resources related to what you said in your answer?

if you search for 'near death experience' on youtube, you'll find tons of interviews with people https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=near+death+experience

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Important Zen Literature after Dogen and before Hakuin
On researching Zen Buddhist literature I'm seeing a gap after Dogen's Shobogenzo in the 13th century, and before Hakuin's Commentary in the 17th century.
Was there any notable Zen writing produced during this period? What was happening in Zen history during this time?

I did some digging, and found a write-up on what was called the 'post-classical' period:

Post-Classical Chán
During the Ming Dynasty, the Chán school was so dominant that all Chinese monks were affiliated with either the Linji school or the Caodong school.[262]
Some scholars see the post-classical phase as being an "age of syncretism."[263] The post-classical period saw the increasing popularity of the dual practice of Chán and Pure Land Buddhism (known as nianfo Chan), as seen in the teachings of Zhongfeng Mingben (1263–1323) and the great reformer Hanshan Deqing (1546–1623). This became a widespread phenomenon and in time much of the distinction between them was lost, with many monasteries teaching both Chán meditation and the Pure Land practice of nianfo.[264][265][63]
The Ming dynasty also saw the efforts of figures such as Yunqi Zhuhong (1535–1615) and Daguan Zhenke (1543–1603) to revive and reconcile Chan Buddhism with the practice of Buddhist scriptural study and writing.[263]
In the beginning of the Qing Dynasty, Chán was "reinvented", by the "revival of beating and shouting practices" by Miyun Yuanwu (1566–1642), and the publication of the Wudeng yantong ("The strict transmission of the five Chan schools") by Feiyin Tongrong's (1593–1662), a dharma heir of Miyun Yuanwu. The book placed self-proclaimed Chan monks without proper Dharma transmission in the category of "lineage unknown" (sifa weixiang), thereby excluding several prominent Caodong monks.[266]

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


text:
What's the Buddhist take on not liking people?
No matter how many retreats or how much I meditate and try to practice metta etc people mostly just irritate me. I just feel happier alone like a hermit in a natural setting. I hate living in a shoebox in a city full of ignorant selfish people. It's like hell to me. I actually get up at 2am so that I can do a whole bunch of stuff before I have to deal with people. One on one I can do social things but as far as humanity as a whole I find people repugnant. Animals are so much nicer. They love unconditionally, they don't judge, bully, use, destroy and pollute nature etc etc

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

similar: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/50212/i-cant-unsee-it

If you find yourself irritated by people, it's because they do not think or act or speak or behave in the ways you want and expect. There's a dissonance between the way people ought to be in your thinking and the way people actually are in your experience, and that dissonance gives rise to dissatisfactions and cravings. Part of Buddhist practice is that irritations of this sort are features of the thinking mind, not to be projected onto the world at large.
Many people are ignorant and selfish (and other unpleasant things), yes. They're that way because that's literally the only way they know to be. They don't understand that one can be a different way, much less have any idea what a 'different way' might look or feel like. They have beliefs about the world baked into them by a society of others who share their ignorance, and when they are confronted by things that might 'un-bake' those beliefs they tend to get reactive and fitful. It's all very 'much ado about nothing', but they can't see that it's 'nothing', so…
If you want to avoid them, that's fine; if you want to accept them as-is, that's fine; if you want to teach them better, that's fine; if you want to work alongside them at a careful distance, that's fine. Just understand that they won't change because of our expectations. They'll only change because they see a better way to be, and the only way they can see that is by looking at people like you. Your irritation with them is only getting in the way of your proper expression of the dharma.

The buddhist take on you not liking people is they create disorder in your mind. If your interaction with them is not doing anything constructive, there is really no point in having that interaction. That's why the Buddha teaches to avoid gossiping, using right speech, etc.
If we put our attention in the world, made up of humans increasing every second, our attention will become more and more diffuse which creates disorder in the mind. This year(2024) alone, we added 9 million people. :) It's like an average tiktoker scrolling an endless video feed, the more you scroll, the more content. I mean social media is fun but sometimes we need to take some break.
But, it really depends on the state of mind, on good days you can handle sarcasm, on bad days, you wish that person never existed.
Buddhism is about creating order in the mind, so let us take any step that helps us with that.

Perhaps liking solitude (who can say?), Ananda once approached the Buddha and said:

SN45.2:1.3: Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:
SN45.2:1.4: “Sir, good friends, companions, and associates are half the spiritual life.”

And the Buddha answered quite clearly:

SN45.2:2.1: “Not so, Ānanda! Not so, Ānanda!
> SN45.2:2.2: Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.
SN45.2:2.3: A mendicant with good friends, companions, and associates can expect to develop and cultivate the noble eightfold path.

A related message is repeated elsewhere to Cunda, who perhaps enjoyed meditation:

MN8:4.1: It’s possible that a certain mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, might enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.
MN8:4.2: They might think
MN8:4.3: they’re practicing self-effacement.
MN8:4.4: But in the training of the Noble One these are not called ‘self-effacement’;

And the Buddha went on to tell Cunda about how to relate to others in daily life:

MN8:12.1: Now, Cunda, you should work on self-effacement in each of the following ways.
MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
...(much more follows)...

The teaching is clear that we should attend to our own actions and not grasp at others actions. It is also clear that the Sangha is quite important, that good spiritual friends are the whole of the spiritual life.
And when those spiritual friends discuss the beauty of different types of practice (including retreat), the Buddha says to them:

MN32:17.3: “You’ve all spoken well in your own way.
MN32:17.4: However, listen to me also as to what kind of mendicant would beautify this sal forest park at Gosiṅga.
MN32:17.5: It’s a mendicant who, after the meal, returns from almsround, sits down cross-legged, sets their body straight, and establishes mindfulness in front of them, thinking:
MN32:17.6: ‘I will not break this sitting posture until my mind is freed from the defilements by not grasping!’

One should perhaps add the explicite appreciation of the mood for recluse (solitude) of Mahakassapa by the Buddha in the sutta of the Gosinga forest. (MN32 [The Buddha:] "(...)Good, good, Sáriputto, just as Kassapo can answer rightly. For Kassapo, Sáriputto, is himself a forest hermit and praises forest hermithood, (...) is himself secluded and praises seclusion, himself flees the world and praises world-fleeing, (...) himself has attained the knowledge-clarity of salvation and praises the attainment of knowledge-clarity of salvation. "). Not only likes hermithood but even praises it...

@GottfriedHelms thank you for mentioning MN32. I have added it to the post. :pray: The Buddha does acknowledge each in their own way (including seclusion). Yet interestingly, the Buddha mentions alms rounds and meditation. Alms are received out there in the vexing world of grasping, a gift given as requisites for the mind. And the mind should be directed to not grasping. The Buddha in his answer bridges the vexing world of alms giver with the peaceful beauty of practice.

Oyamist - thank you for adding this, and even more for your nice extension!

When you wrote what you did about animals,

Animals are so much nicer. They love unconditionally, they don't judge, bully, use, destroy ...

I was tempted to comment, "Have you ever actually met any animals?"
Because my experience is that they love -- but I wouldn't say "unconditionally" -- when they like us it's because we're non-threatening etc.
And they bully -- each other, and their prey, etc. -- I don't see how you can say they don't, except that as you're a member of the "dominant" species they'll tend not to bully you!
But I didn't comment. I thought, "Maybe you have a different experience of animals than I have?"
There's a sutta which says that the way animals behave is conditioned by our "mind of good will": Ahina Sutta: By a Snake (AN 4.67)
Possibly the same it true of humans too? You seem to be saying that because people are ignorant and selfish therefore you find them repugnant -- perhaps the "causal" connection is in the other direction, i.e. it's because you view them with aversion that they seem to you ignorant and selfish, or perhaps they really do act that way towards you when (and because of how) you interact with them.
That's not my experience, I assume almost anyone will 'give me the time of day' at least, if I ask nicely.
Also I think that the suttas identify Māna as a chief cause of dispute:

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride.[1] It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.[2]
Māna is identified as:

One of the five poisons within the Mahayana Buddhist tradition.
One of the six root unwholesome mental factors within the Mahayana Abhidharma teachings
One of the fourteen unwholesome mental factors within the Theravada Abhidhamma teachings
One of the ten fetters in the Theravada tradition

In summary it may be a problem.
Two perhaps-related topics:

How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
Aversion and Mahayana

I'm pretty that sure the Dalai Lama views people with kindness; but I saw him (on a video once) say that, "We're all the same. If I saw myself as 'special', for example 'the Novel Prize winner', then ..." (I forget what he said exactly, it was something like, "... then I'd be trapped and suffer").

If you are being bullied, I hope it gets better.

"There are things that we like, things that we don’t like. Even the Buddha: There were things he liked and things he didn’t like. But he learned how to keep his mind from being overwhelmed by them. When people would come to study with him, some of them would listen to him but they wouldn’t follow through with his teaching, and they didn’t get the results. Of course, he didn’t like that. But he said he established mindfulness so that his mind was not overtaken by his sense of dissatisfaction. When the students did follow his teachings, and did gain awakening, it’s not that he didn’t like that. He did like it, but he didn’t allow the sense of satisfaction to overcome his mind. What this means is that the mind has to learn how to look at these things and not get sucked into them."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Caring Without Clinging" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/GatherRound/Section0075.html

You are seeking unconditional love. That is impossible because all feelings, including love, arise conditionally. Animals may seem to offer unconditional love but that is not true. Even animals love you for their own selfish interests like food, water, home etc. Love can also arise if you are a deserving candidate. But that love is still conditional as it demands you to be a deserving candidate.
Humanity also works on those principles. Humanity will love you if you offer your services for its welfare. Humanity will love you if you are a deserving candidate. However I should warn you that love can not be self neither hate can be self. Feeling of love becomes feeling of hate and feeling of hate becomes feeling of love. Therefore you should practice equanimity. Equanimity means if you find love then it is ok and if you find hatred then also you are ok. You should not seek hatred or love. You should remain calm, composed and blameless.

MN 128 teaches how to get along with others:

Then Anuruddha, Nandiya, and Kimbila came out to greet the Buddha. ...
“I hope you’re living in harmony, appreciating each other, without
quarreling, blending like milk and water, and regarding each other
with kindly eyes?”
“Indeed, sir, we live in harmony as you say.”
“But how do you live this way?”
“In this case, sir, I think: ‘I’m fortunate, so very fortunate, to
live together with spiritual companions such as these.’ I consistently
treat these venerables with kindness by way of body, speech, and mind,
both in public and in private. I think: ‘Why don’t I set aside my own
ideas and just go along with these venerables’ ideas?’ And that’s what
I do. Though we’re different in body, sir, we’re one in mind, it seems
to me.”
And the venerables Nandiya and Kimbila spoke likewise, and they added:
“That’s how we live in harmony, appreciating each other, without
quarreling, blending like milk and water, and regarding each other
with kindly eyes.”
MN 128

In addition, the sutta also states:

For enmity in this world
is never settled by enmity.
It’s only settled by love:
this is an ancient principle.
Others don’t understand
that our lives must have limits.
The clever ones who know this
settle their quarrels right away.
MN 128

The word that was translated as "love" above is avera in Pali, which is translated by some dictionaries as friendliness or kindness.

Not liking others is most likely a form of aversion, which in turn is clinging, suffering.
On the other hand liking others is desire, clinging, suffering.
The "correct" mindstate to have is to be equanimous. To have equanimity and not be moved on way or the other with relation to people.
See the 4 immeasurables, also see here.
Of course this takes time, effort and skill to attain.
Despite that the mahayana put so much emphasis on compassion (and bodhicitta) the Buddha himself explained that compassion is a means to an end. It is used simply to free oneself from ill will. Ill will being a fetter that is only released when one experiences the goal and reaches the state of anagami.
Still there is use of others. Even the Buddha had use of others. Lay people for alms round, which also helps others create causes for the future.
The idea is that all of us, humans as well as animals, are in an interconnected experience. Even the clothes on your back are created by the effort of others.
Though others of course can cause a hindrance and be an obstacle to liberation. The Buddha gave advice on where would be good to meditate and the locations were all places free from the obstacles of others.
Personally I think the trick is to be indifferent to others, friend or stranger and to live a life without connection to others. This obviously also included not having a partner or children. Though you can still sate your sexual desire via others if you like. Keeping in mind sexual desire is still just a fetter, one that is released later.

Hi. Intriguing. This answer starts by warning off against two extremes - aversion and desire. But then the answer ends up on a third extreme - complete indifference to others. Surely some middle-ground can be found?

The middle ground is ultimately there are no others (or self) all we are experiencing is sensory experiences. Its because of the clinging that we see others (and a self) and this is what is causing the suffering.

@Stef To me, equanimity arises from a realisation that nothing endures. People whom we find likeable today, we may find dislikeable tomorrow and vice versa. This realisation applies to all the worldly dhammas. It is seeing this flip flopping happening to and in others and ourselves so many, many times that a sense of "Oops! I (they) did it again" kind of imperturbability and calm emerges. It's a realisation that this is what beings do in samsara. It gives us the strength to bear with the unbearable and the knowledge that the unperturbed mind is all we truly possess in samsara.

Actually, you don't know how to deal with the physical stress when you open your five senses.
So you should separate them. When you open your five senses you need more management. Your mind work hard. So everyone even Arahanta can be tired on physical body.
But Arahanta never feel bad in their mind. They love everyone neither they are good or bad.
So you should separate between physical stress, and mental stress then use the proper method for each one.


text:
Arahants are perfect. Do they realize others are not perfect and they themselves are?
Arahants have eliminated the conceit of, "better," amongst other aspects of conceit and other fetters. However, if they are perfected people, that would mean they are perfect. Other people are not perfect, by very virtue of not being arahants.
How do we explain the fact that an arahant doesn't feel better than anyone, though in reality they are better, morally, spiritually, and emotionally? Doesn't an arahant also lack ignorance? It seems knowing what you are and where you stand is a lack of ignorance.

What is your definition of perfect? Is it accomplished in virtue, wisdom, mental development such as concentration and awareness?

I would say it's directly the accomplishment of the release of suffering, and also causing no one else suffering. This is why I can't resolve my contradiction, because an arahant is automatically perfect by that definition... unless of course by that definition an arahant COULD think they're better, but by more conventional definitions they could not.

The definition of arahant isn't someone who's perfect, it's someone who's got the gist of Buddhism. It may be true that they're good at managing their lives, but 'better or worse' at living has no meaning to them. They realize that everyone is equal.

As far as I know, Arahants don't think of themselves as "selves". Instead, they tend to think in terms of qualities and their sources - i.e. "there's this wisdom, it came from study and meditation, and ultimately from the cumulative effort of generations of Buddhists", "there's this calm, it came from understanding of what's important and what's not important, after making so many stupid mistakes", "there's this kindness, it came from practice of selflessness inspired by these teachers from this tradition".
When you see it like this, there's no reason to be proud - it's not like you invented the Dharma, you just were lucky enough to inherit these causal chains. If you feel anything, it's the gratitude, indebtedness, and desire to pay it forward.
And in general, I don't think Arahants dwell on these things. That's because, being perfect, at any given moment they are supposed to think about whatever is the most helpful thing at that time given the situation at hand, and comparing "this" with "that" is rarely very helpful. How often do you compare yourself with your children? It's kind of beside the point. You are busy changing the diapers or helping with homework, not thinking how much you are better. See what I mean?

Yes that makes sense. I see comparison as a basic human function, but it is always possible that it is not.

Arahants will not feel proud or conceited. They would feel peace.

Regardless of what things they know,
whether internal or external,
they wouldn’t be proud because of that,
for that is not extinguishment, say the good.
They wouldn’t let that make them conceited,
thinking themselves better or worse or alike (equal).
When questioned in many ways,
they wouldn’t keep justifying themselves.
A mendicant would find peace inside themselves,
and not seek peace from another.
For one at peace inside themselves,
there’s no picking up, whence putting down?
Snp 4.14

Though neither proud, nor conceited, they may feel relieved to be free from the suffering that others experience.

How very happily we live,
free from hostility
among those who are hostile.
Among hostile people,
free from hostility we dwell.
How very happily we live,
free from misery
among those who are miserable.
Among miserable people,
free from misery we dwell.
How very happily we live,
free from busyness
among those who are busy.
Among busy people,
free from busyness we dwell.
How very happily we live,
we who have nothing.
We will feed on rapture
like the Radiant gods.
Dhp 197-200

That makes sense, seeing as relief to be free of suffering others experience is a distinct emotion versus pride, which I can imagine it is.

I agreed with the OP that the one quality I deeply admired about the Buddha and his arahant monks is that they do not harm themselves or others (as well as other beings). This gift of harmlessness is something so rare, precious and especially inspiring after I became an adult and witness the hurt, pain and harm inflicted in real life by people to themselves and others; often in the name of the big picture.
I witness an old lady who was denied life prolonging treatment because her main caregiver, her daughter was advised so by the doctors. The context was that since the old woman’s cancer cannot be cured, the hospital bed that she was occupying could be better utilized by another patient (presumably younger with better survival prospect) in need of medical treatment but could not do so due to the shortage of beds. The old woman was devastated when informed of the news by her daughter.
I witness a consultant who spent months working closely with top management and various stakeholders on a project. Just when the project was to be awarded, his service was terminated. Apparently, the company’s IT manager assured top management that the project could be easily implemented in-house. Perhaps, he “gotten” the ideas after sitting in and listening to the various presentations by the consultant. The self-employed consultant was looking forward to securing the project after working hard for months at a pittance. The management must have thought if the IT manager can implement the project in-house, it will save a bunch and it’s good for the company.
I witness couples in marriages where one spouse treats the other like a subordinate. The reason is that their spouse is poor at future planning and thinking ahead. Therefore, the “farsighted and more capable” husband or wife needs to make the big decisions to ensure a brighter future for the marriage and the family.
When I learned the Dharma, the teaching is so simple. But when I step into society, I was taught that this simple teaching is not sufficient to handle the complex, fast-changing and dynamic big picture. The conventional thinking is that the big picture ensure that the overall suffering is reduced and total welfare is maximized, right?
Thankfully, arahants are not like that. An ordinary person will not hesitate to squashed a mosquito because it is feeding on their blood. By killing the mosquito, the argument is that this reduces the potential of a carrier of malaria, dengue and who knows what disease. I know arahants won’t kill a feeding mosquito because monks had told me they don’t.
This harmlessness is why they are accomplished in virtue. I believe they don’t think themselves as better, worse or equal to others as Ajahn Chah said:

“If we think others are worse or better or the same as us, we go off the curve. If we discriminate, we will only suffer.”

This doesn’t mean that arahants are not aware of the on-going cycles of hurt and harm that ordinary people do to themselves and others. They no longer participate in this cycle whether intentionally or otherwise. Free of sufferings themselves and not adding any to the world; just being an inspiration by their harmlessness.

I like this answer's emphasis on how Arahants do have particularly admirable qualities. Additionally the other answer about how arahants feel relief and gratitude. Then, the answer about how without self there's no one to be conceited and that arahants would likely not focus very much time feeling that relief but would rather serve others. One key point from the most popular answer was that one wouldn't compare themselves to their child... which everyone is under the care of an arahant. I would award a winner but learned something from several answers. No one is better or worse!

@JeffBogdan I think the answers are all interlinked. For example, harmlessness is possible because the concept of self no longer exists. Once, we have a sense of self and identities (e.g. clever vs stupid, a somebody vs a nobody) arise, it is hard not to feel threatened, harm ourselves or others out of ignorance and suffer.

The word 'perfect' is not appropriate for arhant.
The fetter of wrong view is already gone when you become sotapanna. in that sense arhant do not know more then a sotapanna. nor he has any great power compare to sotapanna.
In fact going forward he looses even more stuff asmimān too. so there is no more individuality/personality for arhant.
and all this changes from sotapana to arhant is not perfection. but reduction of defilement. and when you know you have no more defilement you also know you have no more rebirth.
At this stage he do not get physic power to read other peoples mind and to read about their future life etc... Getting such physic power is different and not prerequisite for arhant.


text:
How can I breathe more comfortably when sitting?
When I am lying down, my abdomin fills easily, but when sitting with what I believe is proper posture, it feels like my diaphragm is stuck and my breath cannot expand into my abdomen. Only my ribs and upper chest expand. It is not caused by anxiety, nor does it cause a lot of anxiety, but is very distracting and uncomfortable.
It this normal or is it something I can improve with exercises?

can you perhaps describe your posture? what you are sitting on and exactly how.

yes, breathing will become more comfortable with better diet and exercise.
But even people with very healthy diet and exercise regimen with superfically muscular and visual appearance of "fitness" can have the breathing problems you describe, and those deeper problems take internal energy work to dissolve those blockages.
And if you're serious about doing that, that requires celibacy, lots of quiet meditation with minimal thinking, whether in sitting or standing or walking meditation. Whether qigong, taiji, quiet standing or sitting meditation will all help dissolve the deeper energy blockages that can obstruct smooth breathing.
Celibacy, and ceasing energetically expensive activities such as indulging in food, wine, partying, talking, singing, sexual activity, video games, etc., and instead spending 4-6 hours a day meditating you will definitely experience big improvement in a few months, if not weeks.

Sit with Proper Posture:
Keep your feet flat on the floor, hip-width apart.
Maintain a neutral spine by sitting back in the chair with your back straight and shoulders relaxed.
Ensure that your knees are at or slightly below hip level.
Adjust Your Chair:
Use a chair that supports the natural curve of your spine.
Adjust the chair height so that your feet are flat on the floor and your knees are at a 90-degree angle.
Take Breaks:
Stand up and stretch or walk around every 30 minutes to prevent stiffness and improve circulation.
Mindful Breathing:
Practice deep belly breathing to engage your diaphragm. Inhale slowly through your nose, allowing your belly to expand, and exhale through your mouth.
Focus on slow, controlled breaths to calm your nervous system.
Use a Lumbar Support:
Place a small cushion or a rolled-up towel behind the small of your back to support the natural curve of your spine.
Eye Level:
Position your computer or work at eye level to avoid straining your neck and shoulders.
Keep Hydrated:
Drink enough water to stay hydrated, as proper hydration supports overall comfort and well-being.
Move and Stretch:
Perform gentle stretches to release tension in your neck, shoulders, and back. Simple neck rolls, shoulder shrugs, and seated twists can be beneficial.
Ergonomic Accessories:
Consider using ergonomic accessories such as a footrest, ergonomic chair, or keyboard and mouse to support a comfortable working environment.
Mind-Body Practices:
Incorporate mind-body practices like yoga or mindfulness meditation into your routine. These practices can help reduce stress and improve overall well-being.
Remember that finding the right combination of these tips may require some experimentation. Listen to your body and make adjustments accordingly. If you experience persistent discomfort, consider consulting with a healthcare professional or an ergonomics specialist for personalized advice.

change the pattern of breathing. First make it effortful breathing and then let it be natural. and repeat this.
Step 1: fill your body with more oxygen. by doing some fast breathing.pranayam. etc. particularly forceful belly breathing.
This will enable you to stay breathless for some time.
step2 : Exhal and stop effortful inhalation.As if you are about to be breahtless. and see how your body response. While doing this keep your focus on abdomen only.
Keep repeating for some time. this may help.
Its not normal in a sense that there should not be any kind of tightness in body. So wherever there is tension in body. you must pay more gentle and loving attention to relax those muscles. and every time  you need different strategy. but all the time you need love and  patience. because that is also emotional.
You need to also work at level of mind. there must be some truma,fear etc stored there. and hence real relaxation will be felt by you as mental relief too.

When it comes to breathing comfortably while sitting, there are several techniques and positions you can try to enhance your breathing efficiency. Let’s explore some helpful tips:
Use the Nose for Breathing:
Breathing through your nose can slow down your breath and make your lungs work more efficiently.
It also allows the intake of nitric oxide, which aids in oxygen transportation throughout the body.
Breathing through the nose helps filter toxins, allergens, warms cold air, and humidifies dry air.
However, if you’re exercising or have sinus congestion, breathing through the mouth may be necessary.
Practice Belly Breathing (Diaphragmatic Breathing):
The most efficient way to breathe is by bringing the air down toward your belly.
Here’s how to do it:
Sit comfortably or lie down on your back.
Place one hand on your upper chest and the other hand on your belly.
Breathe in slowly, allowing your belly to expand as you fill your lungs completely.
As you inhale, focus on expanding your abdomen rather than just your chest.
Sitting Positions to Improve Breathing:
Try these sitting positions to reduce shortness of breath:
Sitting Position A:
Sit in a chair or a comfortable position.
Keep your feet flat on the floor.
Lean your chest forward slightly.
Rest your elbows on your knees (or place your chin in your hands if comfortable).
Relax your neck and shoulders as much as possible.
Practice your breathing techniques.
Sitting Position B (if a pillow is available):
Place a pillow on a table.
Sit in a chair at the table.
Keep your feet flat on the floor.
Lean your chest forward.
Place your arms on the table.
Rest your head on your forearms (or use a pillow if available).
Continue practicing your breathing techniques.
Standing Positions for Better Breathing:
Sometimes shortness of breath occurs suddenly. If sitting isn’t an option, try standing positions:
Standing Position A:
Find a sturdy wall.
Stand with your feet shoulder-width apart.
Lean your hips against the wall.
Let your hands rest on your thighs.
Allow your shoulders to relax.
Lean forward slightly.
Let your arms dangle in front of you.
Remember to practice your breathing techniques.
Standing Position B:
Find a strong piece of furniture (just below shoulder height, like a table).
Stand at the furniture.
Place your elbows or hands on the chosen furniture.
Lean forward a little.
Relax your neck and shoulders.
You can rest your head on your forearms if your elbows are on the furniture.
Utilize your breathing techniques.
Remember that everyone’s body is unique, so it’s essential to find what works best for you. If you continue to experience discomfort, consider consulting a healthcare professional for personalized advice


text:
Mindfulness is interfering with my subconscious and automatic activities and slowing me down in my daily life. What to do?
I haven't even tried Mindfulness properly and I am already facing huge trouble. I tried to practice mindfulness meditation because I have very poor memory and focus in studies. I tried to be mindful but when I tried to do so, it is interfering with subconscious activities like basic memory and understanding. These are stuff that is mostly done subconsciously but when I become mindful my thoughts are becoming extremely diverse and I am overthinking. Let's say a multiplication comes to my mind - 4x9=36. My mind is like "How is this happening? How is this memory forming? What is 4? What is 9? How am I remembering this specific multiplication when I am remembering so many things? How am I remembering the spelling of 'four'?" and thus my mind would try to decipher my memory. When my mind doesn't find any audio-visual reason for my meditation, these basic memories are fading?
I tried to use mindfulness while studying. When I read a sentence, my mind would automatically decipher the meaning. However, due to mindfulness, it is becoming way more complex as my mind is asking questions like "What is 'and'? What is 'is'? What is 'market'? What is 'regulation'? How do I remember the word 'regu' and 'lation'?" And so on. It is slowing me down heavily and I can't control it. If I try to focus on the present, as mindfulness would require, I cannot focus on what I am studying, as my focus is on words, not on understanding, since understanding requires me to imagine and use my intuition, which I can't when I am observing my thoughts. The entire process of learning, which was somehow automatic, is becoming tiresome with mindfulness. I cannot recall anything, as the process of recall is automatic (subconscious) and when I am observing the recalling process, I can't do it.
Mindfulness involves focusing on breathing, and I do it, but when I resume my daily life, I find myself often distracted, focused on breathing or my 'self' rather than the activities.
On top of it I found that executive dysfunction is a side effect of mindfulness, which is making me worried if I will become disabled by practicing mindfulness. The article says that Buddhist scriptures have recorded these negative effects (where?). Dalai Lama apparently said this is happening because people are not focusing on the 'end'. What is that supposed to mean? What should I do? My memory and focus is poor, so I tried to meditate, but when I do, I start overthinking and my automatic and subconscious processes becomes worse.

What definition of "mindfulness" are you using? It's important to the question but perhaps it varies, from one tradition to another.

@ChrisW Definition? I don't know, maybe you can define it as Mindfulness is a meditation process where one sits and becomes aware of the present and awareness. It also involves being 'mindful' of any activity you are engaging in. I have checked websites, Sam Harris, Youtube, etc and they pretty much seem to say the same thing.

If you won't define it then can you describe it, or say from whom or where you're learning to practice it?

@ChrisW I have mentioned that in my comment. Look again please.

@SuradoeUchiha when your mind starts popping up questions in rapid fire, have you tried to focus on a particular question i.e. investigate and uncover the motivation for the question? E.g. When How is this memory forming? pops up, try immediately asking why the sudden curiosity or interest. See if you can trace back to identify the specific desire associated.

@Desmon well, I am curious by nature. Also, it seems to me that the entire purpose of this exercise is to 'know your self' or even the existence of self, so naturally my mind tries to explore how these cognitive processes and consciousness works

@SuradoeUchiha which is why doing mindfulness practice without the theoretical grounding of the 4 noble truths is not a good idea. Desire is suffering, it is our duty to penetrate and understand this.

I actually do understand some Buddhist principles. I am not a westerner, but a Hindu, so I understand that there is suffering and that desires lead to suffering, but I am a layman. I need to work. I fear if I continue mindfulness, I might become disabled and not be able to clear my exams because of memory and concentration issues from mindfulness. I am not a monk that I can give up my life for meditation. But again, meditation is said to benefit laymen like me too. I am trying to find that benefit.

@Desmon I am trying to be 'aware' of my consciousness. And my consciousness include subconscious and automatic tasks like memory retrieval, comprehension of language, breathing, blinking, etc. When I am trying to be mindful, I don't know how can I 'not' be mindful of these subconscious activities. On the other hand, when I AM mindful of these subconscious activities, I am becoming confused as subconsciousness cannot work while being conscious

"It’s important to note that mindfulness doesn’t mean being fully present in the present moment. It means keeping something in mind. Right mindfulness means keeping in mind lessons from the past — either teachings you’ve learned from others, or lessons you’ve learned from your own experience — so that you can apply them skillfully, by also being alert, in shaping your present intentions."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Karma Q&A, A Study Guide" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/KarmaQ&A/Section0005.html

Indeed, keeping the lessons of the past in mind arises from a desire not to repeat the same old mistakes. It's a desire not to suffer. A realization that it is only the now that we can influence and shape....not the past....and the future is to a large extent what we made of the present.

I assumed your mindfulness practice was self-taught. That is fine, however, I think it is a good idea to have a framework when doing the practice. Below are some ideas/notions/principles that I find useful from my own experience.

The aim of the practice is to reduce stress and suffering.
Feelings and emotions can stir up thoughts. Similarly, thoughts can stir up feelings and emotions. Sometimes, thoughts feed into feelings and emotions which in turn generate even more thoughts. Which in turn generate even more emotions and the circle spiral.
Behind feelings, emotions and thoughts are usually intentions and desires. In mindfulness practice, it is important to trace back and identify the intention/desire behind the proliferation of thoughts, feelings and emotions.
In accordance with the law of karma, skillful intentions lead to skillful outcomes. Likewise, unskillfull intentions brings unskillful outcomes. So, if the intention behind the proliferating thoughts, feelings and emotions are unskillful, we will suffer. I believe you had a taste of it and I believe your proliferating thoughts is not merely curiosity or interest. You’ll need to dig deeper. Once, you uncover the hidden intention, the mind naturally quietens down.
What we attend to, gives it energy. So, in mindfulness practice, we should not attend to (pay attention to) people, objects or activities that increases stress and suffering. We should discern skillful attention versus unskillful attention in the practice. For example, when an image of someone whom malign us in the past appears in our mind, negative feelings and thoughts may appear. Attending to these feelings and thoughts further generate more negative feelings and thoughts. Similarly, pride in one’s ability can trigger feelings and thoughts like I am better than or they don’t recognise my ability and so on.
Conversely, we can attend to qualities that are lacking in us to stir up energy and motivation. For example, we are weak in certain subject, sport or area. We could attend to the pride within; if the others can do it, so can I.

The above becomes clearer when we do the practice using the framework under the four noble truths. Recognizing our state of mind as stressful (suffering) and admitting that stress (suffering) exists (1st truth) allow us to investigate the cause behind. Recognizing that the stress or distress arises from an unskillful intention (2nd truth) brings the mind peace and clarity (3rd truth). Repeating this repertoire (4th truth) helps us to progress in our practice.
Until we are comfortable with investigating our inner mental objects and states, I suggest not trying to dissect what is the self. I think it is also a good idea to review concepts in Buddhist mindfulness for more advanced practice.
With Metta.

Mindfulness is interfering with my subconscious and automatic activities and slowing me down in my daily life.
I'm not sure what you mean by "mindfulness meditation".
One description I've heard of it sometimes is that it involves "noting" thoughts. There are various descriptions of that by different people, one of them is here:

Mental Noting

Noting directs thinking into a simple, rudimentary form, rather than letting it wander off into distraction.

Maybe it's not a suitable technique to use "in my daily life". When for example I am driving, then I want to be distracted by that activity, perhaps ideally I'd like to be aware of nothing but that activity.
Mindfulness involves focusing on breathing, and I do it, but when I resume my daily life, I find myself often distracted, focused on breathing or my 'self' rather than the activities.
I'm not sure that's so. Another way I've read it described is that, when you're not focussed on or thinking about anything else, then breathing is the only activity which remains, of which you can be conscious.
Maybe the goal isn't to focus on breathing but to let go of other thoughts, let them diminish.
Dalai Lama apparently said this is happening because people are not focusing on the 'end'.
In that video he says that people need to start with book-learning, and to know the goal of meditation.
What is that supposed to mean?
The Dalai Lama studied Buddhism full-time, all his life -- see this answer for example.
To my slight understanding, the "goal" is to end "suffering". There's a "three-fold" training and a lay-person normally concentrates more on "virtuous" activity than on "mindful" meditation.
Perhaps you should review your activity -- does this cause suffering (should I stop), is it skilful (should I do more)?
My memory and focus is poor, so I tried to meditate
Maybe you get better at what you practice. If you want to study then practice studying.
Maybe meditation does interfere with other activities. Maybe if you try it should be instead of harmful or useless activities -- instead of watching television for example, or something like that -- and not "while studying".

Art Of Living – S.N. Goenka & William Hart
This book available free from Archive.org and https://archive.org/details/art-of-living-1
After reading this book a person should be ready for a 10 day Vipassana retreat: https://www.dhamma.org/en-US/index, and
https://www.dhamma.org/en-US/courses/search.

INTRODUCTION Suppose you had the opportunity to free yourself of all
worldly responsibilities for ten days, with a quiet, secluded place in
which to live, protected from disturbances. In this place the basic
physical requirements of room and board would be provided for you, and
helpers would be on hand to see that you were reasonably comfortable.
In return you would be expected only to avoid contact with others and,
apart from essential activities, to spend all your waking hours with
eyes closed, keeping your mind on a chosen object of attention. Would
you accept the offer? Suppose you had simply heard that such an
opportunity existed, and that people like yourself were not only
willing but eager to spend their free time in this way. How would you
describe their activity? Navel-gazing, you might say, or
contemplation; escapism or spiritual retreat; self-intoxication or
self-searching; introversion or introspection. Whether the connotation
is negative or positive, the common impression of meditation is that
it is a withdrawal from the world. Of course there are techniques that
function in this way. But meditation need not be an escape. It can
also be a means to encounter the world in order to understand it and
ourselves. Every human being is conditioned to assume that the real
world is outside, that the way to live life is by contact with an
external reality, by seeking input, physical and mental, from without.
Most of us have never considered severing outward contacts in order to
see what happens inside. The idea of doing so probably sounds like
choosing to spend hours staring at the test pattern on a television
screen. We would rather explore the far side of the moon or the bottom
of the ocean than the hidden depths within ourselves. But in fact the
universe exists for each of us only when we experience it with body
and mind. It is never elsewhere, it is always here and now. By
exploring the here-and-now of ourselves we can explore the world.
Unless we investigate the world within we can never know reality — we
will only know our beliefs about it, or our intellectual conceptions
of it.

Mindfulness in Plain English – Bhante-Gunaratana
Another useful book is Mindfulness-in-Plain-English https://archive.org/details/mindfulness-in-plain-english-bhante-gunaratana

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Venerable Henepola Gunaratana was ordained at the age
of 12 as a Buddhist monk at a small temple in Malandeniya Village in
Kurunegala District in Sri Lanka. His preceptor was Venerable
Kiribatkumbure Sonuttara Mahathera. At the age of 20 he was given
higher ordination in Kandy in 1947. He received his education from
Vidyalankara College and Buddhist Missionary College in Colombo.
subsequently he traveled to India for five years of missionary work for
the Mahabodhi Society, serving the Harijana (untouchable) people in
sanchi, Delhi, and Bombay. Later he spent ten years as a missionary in
Malaysia, serving as religious advisor to the Sasana
Abhivurdhiwardhana Society, Buddhist Missionary Society and the
Buddhist Youth Federation of Malaysia. He has been a teacher in Kishon
Dial School and Temple Road Girls’ School and Principal of the Buddhist
Institute of Kuala Lumppur. At the invitation of the Sasana Sevaka
Society, Venerable Gunaratana came to the United States in 1968 to
serve as Hon. General Secretary of the Buddhist Vihara Society of
Washington, D.C. In 1980 he was appointed President of the Society.
During his years at the Vihara, he has taught courses in Buddhism,
conducted meditation retreats and lectured widely throughout the
United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. He has also
pursued his scholarly interests by earning a B.A., an M.A., and a Ph.D.
in Philosophy from The American University. He taught courses on
Buddhism at The American University, Georgetown University and
University of Maryland. His books and articles have been published in
Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka and_ the US.a. Since 1973 he has been
Buddhist chaplain at The American University, counseling students
interested in Buddhism and Buddhist meditation. He is now president of
the Bhavana Society in West Virginia in the Shenandoah Valley, about
100 miles from Washington, D.C. teaching meditation and conducting
meditation retreats

One of the Monks that contributed to this book, (and taught this person meditation), is Bhikkhu Sona who is the Abbot of this forest monastery: https://birken.ca/about/
It is highly recommended to have good teachers when learning Dhamma and Meditation.
There are some very talented Monks who answer questions on this site.

Thank you for answering. It is normal by the way to also quote from what you reference, perhaps a paragraph which answers the specific question.

Thank you for your advice @ChrisW, I have added some quotes from these books, however, the full text of these books is available free from Archive.Org, at the click of the mouse on the attached links.

Neither of the quotes answer the question, do they.

@ChrisW: The OP seems to be having problems with Mindfulness meditation. The proper way to improve meditation is to have a good teacher. Self-taught is generally not as useful. That is one reason the Buddha created the Sangha. The quotations given are meant to introduce and subject matter of the books, Vipassana and Mindfullness. It is believed that these books and a ten day meditation will answer the OP's need. It is not understood how a person can self teach themselves Buddhism. Where would they start?

I think you should start with loving-kindness meditation first and go up from there.  It won't interfere much but your nightmares (spoiler: it will lessen them).
Cheers.


text:
Which sankhya scriptures were taught to buddha?
From wikipedia :
Alara Kalama (Pāḷi & Sanskrit Āḷāra Kālāma/ Arāḍa Kālāma]), was a hermit and a teacher of SamkhyaHe was the first teacher of Gautama Buddha.
I want to know  which scriptures of samkhya philosophy were taught to buddha?
Also was Buddha told characters of mahabharat /ramayan . Is it mentioned anywhere?

Historically I don't think this can be known, but it's reasonable to assume that he was well versed in the Hindu ideas of his day.

@Cdn_Dev Is it mentioned in any buddhist scriptures? History stack exchange suggested to ask me here

Ramayana is estimated to have been written around 400 BC-200 BC while Mahabharata is estimated to be written between 400 BC-400 AD. From this it can be argued that both were written at least centuries after Buddha's Mahaparinirvana. Therefore, it does not seem possible that Buddha could be told of characters from the two epics.

@HomagetoManjushri first of all datings has problems because panini of 5 th century BC in asthadhyayi sutra 6.2.38 mentions mahabharat and mahabharat has many references from Ramayana. Also they have oral transmissions all over India. So, maybe buddha could know them by oral transmissions. Jataka tales also have few references

The dates I have mentioned are taken from UNESCO website. If dating has many problems, then why believe Panini's 5th Century to be an accurate date? Why is that not a problem too? The point that must be highlighted is the following- there is a brazen attempt to fabricate history which doesnt exist. Every date which researchers inform us is contested when those dates dismiss the fabricated assumptions. And in the garb of difficulty of dating, imaginative history (a result of political propaganda) is then created, appropriating anything which Buddha or Buddhism does as part of Hindutva history.

Ruben's answer below perfectly brings out the small point I am making in more detail. Let us critically raise questions and investigate difficulties. But at the same time, let us not fall prey to political propaganda.

@HomagetoManjushri two things :1) if you are political about hindutva and history , then remember buddhism have many state sponsored religion at first and sri Lankan buddhists genocided hindus and have reservation, 2) you can't change my religious views (manu 12.95 , 12.96) still you couldn't answer the panini's astadhayyi part?

Yes I am aware of state sponsoring in Sri Lanka, the genocide of Indian Tamils, genocide conducted in Myanmar against Muslims, genocides in India in past against Buddhists and genocide being orchestrated currently in Gaza. All genocide is evil and we must put all efforts in preventing such atrocious acts done by people who claim to belong to this religion or that religion (or even no religion). Violence has no place in the world, especially in spirituality. And those who do it must be called out.

Also, factually you are incorrect. Buddhists are not given reservations anywhere. Further, I have no interest in changing your views, I merely wished to elucidate them. That helps to set the context of your question to all viewers. Regarding that I couldnt answer about Panini- I already did. I do it again-any date which does not agree with the Hindutva world view is deemed to be full of errors on account of difficulty of dating. However, any date given by the Hindutva ideology is beyond this difficulty of dating. WHY? This is not reason- this is agenda.

According to Palikanon's page on Alara Kalama:

One of the two teachers to whom Gotama, after his renunciation, first
attached himself, the other being Uddaka Rāmaputta. In the
Milindapañha (p.236) Ālāra is mentioned as Gotama's fourth teacher.
....
In the Ariyaparivesāna Sutta (M.i.163-5; also 240ff; ii.94ff, 212ff)
the Buddha describes his visit to Ālāra. Gotama quickly mastered his
doctrine and was able to repeat it by heart; but feeling sure that
Ālāra not only knew the doctrine but had realised it, he approached
him and questioned him about it. Ālāra then proclaimed the
ākiñcaññāyatana (sphere of nothingness, see jhāna 7), and Gotama,
putting forth energy and concentration greater than Ālāra's, made
himself master of that state. Ālāra recognised his pupil's eminence
and treated him as an equal, but Gotama, not having succeeded in his
quest, took leave of Ālāra to go elsewhere (VibhA.432). When, after
having practised austerities for six years, the Buddha attained
Enlightenment and granted Sahampati's request to preach the doctrine,
it was of Ālāra he thought first as being the fittest to hear the
teaching. But Ālāra had died seven days earlier (Vin.i.7).
As already stated above, the aim of Ālāra’s practices is stated to
have been the attainment of Akiñcaññayatana, the stage of nothingness.
Whether this statement is handed down with any real knowledge of the
facts of his teaching, it is not now possible to say. Asvaghosa, in
his Buddhacarita (xii.17ff), puts into the mouth of Ārāda or Ālāra, a
brief account of his philosophy. It has some resemblance - though this
is slight - to the Sānkhya philosophy, but in Ālāra’s teaching some of
the salient characteristics of the Sānkhya system are absent. In
reply to Gotama's questions about the religious life and the obtaining
of final release, Ālāra describes a system of spiritual development
which is identical with the methods of the Buddhist monk up to the
last attainment but one. The monk reaches the four jhānas and then
attains successively to the states of space, infinity and nothingness.
The last three stages are described in the terms of the first three of
the four Attainments.

From the above, we see that it was Asvaghosa who alleged, in his Buddhacarita (written a few centuries after the Buddha), that Alara Kalama taught something with some slight similarity to Samkhya. However, most of the salient characteristics of Samkhya is missing from Alara Kalama's teachings.
The Palikanon has this statement regarding Sage Kapila, the founder of Samkhya:

Kapila.-An ancient teacher of philosophy, mentioned together with
Kanāda as having taught that the soul was limitless (na antavā)
(UdA.339; see also Svetasvatara Upanisad v.2, and Rāmāyana i.40). He
is probably identical with the founder of the Sānkhya system.

So, neither Sage Kapila nor Samkhya are mentioned in the Buddhist scriptures (Pali Canon), although he is mentioned in the Udana commentaries, along with Sage Kanada, as having taught that the soul was limitless, which is contradictory to what was taught by the Buddha. Udana is part of the Pali Canon in Khuddaka Nikaya, but the Udana commentaries are not.
It is interesting that suffering (dukkha), soteriological theories and some atheistic ideas are similar between Samkhya and Buddhism. However, the key ideas of Purusha and Prakrti of Samkhya is not at all found in Buddhism.
The wikipedia page on Samkhya talks of mutual influence between the earliest Samkhya ideas and, Buddhism and Jainism. However, Samkhya Karika definitely comes after the Buddha. The ideas of suffering and atheism in later Samkhya are said to come about due to influence by Buddhism, according to scholars.

Buddhism and Jainism had developed in eastern India by the 5th century
BCE. It is probable that these schools of thought and the earliest
schools of Samkhya influenced each other. According to Burley, there
is no evidence that a systematic samkhya-philosophy existed prior to
the founding of Buddhism and Jainism, sometime in the 5th or 4th
century BCE. A prominent similarity between Buddhism and Samkhya is
the greater emphasis on suffering (dukkha) as the foundation for their
respective soteriological theories, than other Indian
philosophies. However, suffering appears central to Samkhya in its
later literature, which likely suggests a Buddhist influence. Eliade,
however, presents the alternate theory that Samkhya and Buddhism
developed their soteriological theories over time, benefiting from
their mutual influence.
Larson, Bhattacharya and Potter state it to be likely that early
Samkhya doctrines found in oldest Upanishads (~700-800 BCE) provided
the contextual foundations and influenced Buddhist and Jaina
doctrines, and these became contemporaneous, sibling intellectual
movements with Samkhya and other schools of Hindu philosophy. This is
evidenced, for example, by the references to Samkhya in ancient and
medieval era Jaina literature.

And also:

Chandradhar Sharma in 1960 affirmed that Samkhya in the beginning was
based on the theistic absolute of Upanishads, but later on, under the
influence of Jaina and Buddhist thought, it rejected theistic monism
and was content with spiritualistic pluralism and atheistic realism.
This also explains why some of the later Samkhya commentators, e.g.
Vijnanabhiksu in the sixteenth century, tried to revive the earlier
theism in Samkhya.

According to various  Wikipedia pages:

The bulk of the Mahābhārata was probably compiled between the 3rd century BCE and the 3rd century CE, with the oldest preserved parts not much older than around 400 BCE.

The Hinduism scholar Jeaneane Fowler, in her commentary on the (Bhagavad) Gita, considers second century BCE to be the probable date of composition. J. A. B. van Buitenen also states that the Gita was likely composed about 200 BCE. According to the Indologist Arvind Sharma, the Gita is generally accepted to be a 2nd-century-BCE text.

Samkhya karika was probably composed sometime in the Gupta Empire period, between 320-540 CE

The (Jataka) tales are dated between 300 BCE and 400 CE

(Aṣṭādhyāyī) Authored by Sanskrit philologist and scholar Pāṇini and dated to around 500 BCE,

(The historical Buddha's lifetime:) Most historians in the early 20th century use the earlier dates of 563 – 483 BCE

So, based on these, you can see that the Buddha lived centuries before Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita, Samkhya Karika and Jataka Tales.
Meanwhile, Panini authored the Astadhyayi around the Buddha's lifetime. So, all texts composed in Classical Sanskrit obviously came after the Buddha's lifetime.
The only Hindu texts referenced in the Pali Canon are three of the Vedas.
The only other Hindu texts that existed before the Buddha's time are the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad and Chandogya Upanishad, although both are not named in the Pali Canon. All other Upanishads come after the Buddha. So, the only Hindu scriptures that could have influenced the Buddha are the three oldest Vedas and the two oldest Upanishads.

According to Bhikhu sujato udaka ramaputta is rishi udalaks liniage.
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/a-ara-kalama-uddaka-ramaputta-what-tradition/6210/6
This liniage compiled chandogya upanishad. dialog with his son/swetaketu. he gave concept of atman, brahman.
They also compiled Brihadaranyaka . ( his name is aruni too.)
in DN 29, buddha explains why he was not satisfied with Udaka Ramaputtas teaching. Here he quotes famous non-duality teaching. "knowing one after which you dont need to know". by passaṃ na passatī’ti.
And in that sutta ,Buddhas argument against this philosophy is that, his teaching is only about path and not about the destination.
Teachers of that time were overly discussing about nibbana(the destination) and less about path. and hence he focused more on 8fold path and less on what is nibbana.


text:
why 9th samādhi attainment is called as sanna-vedayita-nirodho and not as sanna-vedana-nirodho?
There must be some reason, to use vedayita and not vedana.
my intuition says that its not cessation of feeling. but cessation of feeling object.
what do you say ?
From DPD digital pali dictionary:
vedayita nt.
which is felt; felt experience; feeling; lit. felt [√vid + *aya + ita] ✓
vedanā 1
fem. (pleasant, unpleasant or neutral) felt experience; feeling; sensation; second of the five aggregates; lit. causing to know [√vid + *anā] ✓

I don't know but I can guess, based on my general understanding...
I think saññā-vedayita should be taken as one compound word that means "the feelings caused by the associations".
This follows the Mahayana understanding of samjna (Pali saññā) as "association" or "recognition through interpretation of signs", as explained in the following passages:

"Its [saññā - AV] function is to make a sign as a condition for perceiving again that "this is the same," or its function is recognizing what has been previously perceived. It becomes manifest as the interpreting of the object...by way of the features that had been apprehended. Its proximate cause is the object as it appears. Its procedure is compared to a carpenter's recognition of certain kinds of wood by the mark he has made on each" ~ Bhikkhu Bodhi
"[saññā] has the characteristic of noting and the function of recognizing what has been previously noted. There is no such thing as perception ... without the characteristic of noting. All perceptions have the characteristic of noting. ... Its manifestation is the action of interpreting by means of the sign as apprehended." ~ Buddhaghosa
"Perception consists of the grasping of distinguishing features." ~ Mipham Rinpoche
"What is the absolutely specific characteristic of saṃjñā? It is to know by association. It is to see, hear, specify, and to know by way of taking up the defining characteristics and distinguishing them." ~ Abhidharma-samuccaya

And, as I pointed out many times on this site, nirodha is not mere passive "cessation" but an active "arrest" or "prevention".
This would make the 9th attainment an "arrest of feelings that would be caused by the recognitions and associations".
So I think what happens here is, we learn to suspend interpreting the signs into their meanings, cutting off the entire chain of secondary associations and the tertiary emotional reactions.
(The 8th and 9th attainments sound very similar to the states of mind described in the greek tradition of Pyrrhonism, epoché and  ataraxia. Not at all surprising, given that Pyrrho of Elis traveled to India with Alexander the Great and his philosophy is basically a Greek reinterpretation of Buddhism.)

So what does this all amount to? I think, dear friends, this sanna-vedayita-nirodha is nothing other than the dispassion and disenchantment aspect of Nirvana.
Nirvana, it seems, is freedom from the known, the feelings caused by the known, and the limits set by the known.

Very true, nibiddhay, viragay, nirodhay, nibbanay... The technique of nibiddha(disenchantment) is to stay at distance from experience. build attitude of not-interested, not required(abide in not knowing). either by anicca/anatta/dukkha or by being interested in samadhi (etan santan etan panitam) amids the experience. This will result into dispassion. and then prevention of feeling will happen.


text:
Textural reference(s) for Bhadda Kapilani, a practitioner who for many lifetimes made the aspiration to be reborn as a woman?
I just read '. . . Bhadda Kapilani, a practitioner who for many lifetimes made the aspiration to be reborn as a woman.' What are the textural references for this?

An overview regarding Bhadda Kapilani Theri can be found in Palikanon. Nothing here talks about her wanting to be reborn a woman. She seems to have always been reborn a woman according to this page.
Here are some other references:
There is one entry in Thig 4.1.
There's another very long entry on Bhadda Kapilani on Thi Ap 27.

“The foremost of my nun disciples who recollect past lives is Bhaddā daughter of Kapila."
AN 1.5.10

The long story from the AN commentary can be found here: AA 1.5.10.
The same story can be found in Ven. Sujato's blog entry: Kassapa and Bhadda Kapilani.
There is a story of Bhadda Kapilani in Chapter 2: Bhadda Kapilani of Hellmuth Hecker's essay entitled Maha Kassapa: Father of the Sangha.
There are many more references on Bhadda Kapilani, many of them in the Vinaya. You can search for "Bhadda Kapilani" on Sutta Central to find these.