text:
Is AN 5.191 coherent with the rest of the suttas? Or is it an inserted polemical sutta?
The following sutta AN 5.191 is a bit unusual, because it seems to highlight the moral decadence of newer generations of brahmins / brahmans, compared to the older generations.
However, to my understanding, the Buddha was not concerned with intercaste marriages firstly. Secondly, I don't think there was sex slave trade in ancient India. Thirdly, brahmins who were not monks, need not collect almsfood, because they can store and cook their own food. Fourthly, it looks like an ad hominem attack.
So, to me, this looks like a polemical sutta that was inserted later, and not originally spoken by the Buddha.
Was there any commentaries or scholarly opinions on this topic?
Or is this sutta indeed coherent with the rest of the Buddha's teachings?

“Monks, these five ancient brahmanical traditions are now observed
among dogs but not among brahmans. Which five?
“In the past, brahman males mated only with brahman females and not
with non-brahman females. At present, brahman males mate with brahman
females and with non-brahman females. At present, male dogs mate only
with female dogs and not with female non-dogs. This is the first
ancient brahmanical tradition that is now observed among dogs but not
among brahmans.
“In the past, brahman males mated with brahman females only in-season
and not out-of-season. At present, brahman males mate with brahman
females in-season and out-of-season. At present, male dogs mate with
female dogs only in-season and not out-of-season. This is the second
ancient brahmanical tradition that is now observed among dogs but not
among brahmans.
“In the past, brahman males did not buy or sell brahman females, but
took up cohabitation for the sake of reproduction simply through
mutual attraction. At present, brahman males buy and sell brahman
females, and take up cohabitation for the sake of reproduction simply
through mutual attraction. At present, male dogs do not buy or sell
female dogs, but take up cohabitation for the sake of reproduction
simply through mutual attraction. This is the third ancient
brahmanical tradition that is now observed among dogs but not among
brahmans.
“In the past, brahmans did not make a stash of wealth, grain, silver,
or gold. At present, brahmans make stashes of wealth, grain, silver, &
gold. At present, dogs do not make a stash of wealth, grain, silver,
or gold. This is the fourth ancient brahmanical tradition that is now
observed among dogs but not among brahmans.
“In the past, brahmans searched for alms for their morning meal in the
morning, and for their evening meal in the evening. At present,
brahmans, having eaten as much as they like, swelling their bellies,
leave taking the leftovers. At present, dogs search for alms for their
morning meal in the morning, and for their evening meal in the
evening. This is the fifth ancient brahmanical tradition that is now
observed among dogs but not among brahmans.
“These, monks, are the five ancient brahmanical traditions that are
now observed among dogs but not among brahmans.”
AN 5.191

This question could be opinion-based.

Comparing one's opponents to dogs is very unbuddha like. Looks like a later insertion.

"I don't think there was sex slave trade in ancient India" Well ... I think it exists/existed in most large (i.e. not isolated) human societies (so I'd assume ancient India also). Also I think that AN 5.177 includes Sattavanijja in the short list of "wrong livelihood" for laypeople, and that that means "slave trade".

But in context I suppose it's referring to dowries. Wikipedia's "Dowry system in India - Historical context" suggests that indeed it's a modern invention (e.g. later than 2nd century BC -- but "dowry" means "the bride's family paying the groom", not "the groom buying the bride", so I don't know. The Pali word is kiṇantipi and vikkiṇantipi, I wonder if "buy" and "sell" is an accurate translation? There's no common English word for the opposite i.e. for being paid to take something.

@ChrisW I thought about dowry too. But it doesn't make sense since the bride's parents pay it.

@ChrisW: i don't know enough about the practices of the period to say this definitively, but in context it seems to be talking about divorce and remarriage (or maybe the acquisition of second wives?), as trophy wives or for political or economic alliances. That's a common enough practice in ancient cultures worldwide (not to mention our era). The passage seems to be calling out brahmans for not adhering to moral standards of restraint and constancy in marriage. though the analogy to dogs - who are notably un-picky about mates — falls a little flat.

@ChrisW: As an aside, I think it's funny how people rationalize things. If you go up one level on the dhammatalks.org site, you'll find a page with links to all the AN suttas with short descriptions. Their description of AN 5.191 is "The Buddha compares brahmans with dogs, and the dogs come out better in the comparison. An example of how pointed the Buddha’s sense of humor could be." So apparently they want to resolve the historiographic issue by claiming the Buddha did stand-up comedy on weekends...

@ChrisW: Live from the Dhamma Theater in beautiful downtown Sarnath, It's... The Buuuuddhaaaaa!!!"

I’m voting to close this question because it appears to be an expression of secular cultural marxism.

If you look at the original:

“Pañcime, bhikkhave, porāṇā brāhmaṇadhammā etarahi sunakhesu
sandissanti, no brāhmaṇesu. Katame pañca?
Pubbe sudaṁ, bhikkhave, brāhmaṇā brāhmaṇiṁyeva gacchanti, no
abrāhmaṇiṁ. Variant: sudaṁ → pubbassudaṁ (mr)Etarahi, bhikkhave,
brāhmaṇā brāhmaṇimpi gacchanti, abrāhmaṇimpi gacchanti. Etarahi,
bhikkhave, sunakhā sunakhiṁyeva gacchanti, no asunakhiṁ. Ayaṁ,
bhikkhave, paṭhamo porāṇo brāhmaṇadhammo etarahi sunakhesu sandissati,
no brāhmaṇesu.

Then the root word used to refer to dogs is sunakh-, where the words used to refer to dog, as in the animal species, in Pali are usually koṭṭhu° or Kukkura (hence the modern Hindi  कुत्ता. Kuttā). So this is an interesting choice of word, since this root word is found in the Petavatthu meaning or alluding to something completely different:

sunakho te khādati: a constituent part of a whole or system or collection (Pv II.1210, 13, 18)
in °sunakha, the Dog of Purgatory (Pv 152) of a dark, i.e. miserable, unfortunate birth, or social condition

So it's very plausible this text is wordplay to compare the behavior of the highest cast in the contemporary society (brahmin) to the lowest cast. I probably do not need to remind anyone that even today the lowest cast in India is referred to as "untouchables". As such, it's interesting that the word sandissati forms an idiom with the sunakh- root, so that sunakhesu sandissanti，can also mean "they are of no more value"( J．VI，217 )
We actually have the same wordplay in modern English vernacular: everyone knows what "you dog, you!" is referring to. It's not suggesting the person is an actual dog, but alluding to behavior.

Samyutta Nikaya 45.8

"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, abstaining from divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech, abstaining from idle chatter: This, monks, is called right speech.

It is very unbuddha like to compare one's opponents to dogs. AN 5.191, can thus be argued to be a later insertion. However, it is subjective whether the argument will be accepted.

This answer includes,

But Sujato thinks that the Anguttara is anyway later than Samyutta since it was composed using the small-sized suttas that could not be included in the thematic system of the Samyutta.

It really depends on cultural norms, who the audience is, the intention and attitude with which one speaks,  whether comparing heterodox tradition to dogs is inappropriate.
In MN 152 Buddha compares the teaching of brahmans by pointing out, "then blind men and deaf men would have developed faculties by their standard."
https://lucid24.org/mn/mn152/index.html
Is that insulting? Could be. But is it true? Yes.
Ask the same question with AN 5.191
AN 6.29 Buddha asks a disciple "what are the 6 recollections". He gets the answer wrong, Buddha calls him a foolish man (mogha purisa). Is that insulting? It that un Buddha like? You can find plenty more examples like that.
In MN 75 (I think), the Buddha makes a simile of a brahman teacher deluding his students by blindfolding them and lying to them about their health condition. The Buddha asks, if the person removed the blindfold, realized that teacher was lying to him, wouldn't he want to kill him?
Shocking isn't it? Is it insulting to that brahman? Is that un Buddha like? Or is he simply stating something likely to be true?
I think people project too much of their own ideas of virtue on to the Buddha and arahants. You all imagine the Buddha has some super power where everything that comes out of his mouth is politically correct and completely inoffensive to all people at all times.
There's also the concept of satire and humor. That existed during the Buddha's time too.


text:
the result of feelings
The Nibbedhika Sutta: Penetrative (translated by Ven. Thanissaro) states the following:

"And what is the result of feeling? One who feels a feeling produces a corresponding state of existence, on the side of merit or demerit. This is called the result of feeling.

What does this mean?  If a feeling is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neither pleasant nor unpleasant, then isn't additional input required to determine merit or demerit?

Piya Tan's translation of Nibbedhika Sutta feels more intuitive here:

And what, bhikshus, is the result of feelings.  Bhikshus, one who
feels is reborn as an individual into this or that existence depending
on one’s merit or on one’s demerit  — This, bhikshus, is called the
result of feelings.
Nibbedhika Sutta (translated by Piya Tan)

This statement talks about dependent origination - how feelings lead to craving, clinging, becoming (or existence), then the birth of the mental idea of the self (or the birth of individual identity).
Feelings refer to sight, sound, smell, tactile sensation, taste and thoughts.
The exact birth, depends on the merit or demerit of a person, which then depends on the mental influxes (defilements, taints, effluents - asava).
Piya Tan continues:

And what, bhikshus, is the diversity of mental influxes? There are
mental influxes that lead one on to the hells. There are mental
influxes that lead one on to the animal kingdom. There are mental
influxes that lead one on to the ghost realm. There are mental
influxes that lead one on to the human world. There are mental
influxes that lead one on to the heavenly world. —This, bhikshus,
is called the diversity of mental influxes.
And what, bhikshus, is the result of mental influxes?   Bhikshus, one
guided by ignorance (avijjā) is reborn as an individual into this or
that existence depending on one’s merit or on one’s demerit.   —This,
bhikshus, is called the result of mental influxes.

Feeling causes grasping, grasping craving, craving becoming, becoming birth and with it aging, sickness, death, and the whole mass of suffering, good householder. So feeling keeps one in the circle of merits and demerits, gain and loos, personal intended actions (kamma) has not end.
As for relation of what feeling determines which course it's lesser about what kind of feeling as to what kind of feeling in regard of what. Pleased with skilful, not harming, not struggling, renouncing (deeds by oneself or others) causes an upwardly path, unpleasant feeling with harmful, sensuallity, as well. While being pleased and delight in unskilful or dspleased with good, agati, way down.
To get ones feelings right adjusted, right view needs to be developed gradually, starting to go after merits, till maybe the point where feelings at all are seen just as feeling, and by gain of knowledge, even abound (being) touch(ed) at all, as touch (at ignorance) is the cause of feeling to arise.
It's possible good to mention that a commons person "neutral feeling" isn't the same as 'out of touch' but merely sign of grave not-knowing, ignorance.
more on it maybe here: Viel der Gefühle - Many of those Feelings
de-powered by:

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to explain to someone with no knowledge about Buddhism what is meant by "extinguishing" the self?
A person I know has drawn the unwanted conclusion that the entanglement from the self is to be equated with erasing one's personality, feelings and connections in life. That to be extinguished in Nirvana means the complete loss of the contents and meaning of one's life and forever remaining in a state of unfeeling lethargy.
I have not answered this person yet for I don't know how.
It happens to most Westerners at some point. It's very hard to grasp Buddhist concepts.
Could someone give me some advice on how to explain to that person what Buddhists mean by the extinction of the self?

Let's say you know someone who is strongly addicted to recreational drugs (like cocaine or heroine) until he cannot live a normal and productive life anymore. He looks disheveled and constantly seeking a state of high, otherwise he would experience withdrawal symptoms.
You approach him and say, "would you believe me, if I told you that it's possible to live a normal, healthy, happy and productive life, without drugs?"
The drug addict may reply, "What kind of life is that? It would be like living in unfeeling lethargy". The drug addict thinks that the lack of feeling high by drugs must then be some kind of unfeeling lethargy.
This is similar to the situation that you have described, with respect to the ordinary person thinking about those who have become liberated from samsara.

Thank you. A metaphor might be a suitable approach.

Another approach would be to peel the onion. The Heart Sutra does this in much greater detail.
I am not the body. I am not the senses.
I am not the mind. I am not the thoughts.
I am not the intellect. I am not the emotions.
What am I? Who am I?
When all the layers are gone, all that remains is a sense of being that is entirely impersonal.
I am not there.

When I look inside, I see that I am no-thing. That is wisdom.
When I look outside, I see that I am every thing. That is love.
Between these two, life flows.
-Nisargadatta Maharaj

Before we dive into extinguishment, perhaps we can back up a little bit and start with a point of agreement.
Westerners do understand and value unselfishness, and that is wonderful. So a conversation about extinguishment might start with unselfishness:

AN4.95:1.1: “Mendicants, these four people are found in the world.
AN4.95:1.2: What four?
AN4.95:1.3: One who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others;
AN4.95:1.4: one who practices to benefit others, but not themselves;
AN4.95:1.5: one who practices to benefit themselves, but not others; and
AN4.95:1.6: one who practices to benefit both themselves and others.

And westerners, having been taught to value self-advancement, will also be pleasantly relieved that the Buddha agrees that there is something better than obsessive self-sacrifice:

AN4.95:2.1: Suppose there was a firebrand for lighting a funeral pyre, burning at both ends, and smeared with dung in the middle. It couldn’t be used as timber either in the village or the wilderness.
AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.
AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.
AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Finally, insightful westerners will be quite relieved that the Buddha advocates for the "win-win" situation as the best of all these:

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

So what then is this "extinguishment?"
Well, the more we work to benefit ourselves and others, the more we realize just how cumbersome it is to think every single moment, "this is for me and that is for others". And gradually we become dissatisfied with that clumsy way of thinking always about "me and others". Indeed, it gradually becomes simpler and easier to simply think about "best for all".
When we stop feeding the fires of greed, hate and delusion, the fires gradually fade away from lack of fuel. All fires fade this way. All fires fade away from lack of fuel. And in this simple way those three fires of suffering also become extinguished through lack of fuel.

DN16:4.43.4: A skillful person gives up bad things—
DN16:4.43.5: with the end of greed, hate, and delusion, they’re extinguished.”

Here is an analogy suitable for a layperson.
Imagine you are dreaming. In the dream, you don't recognize that your 'real body' is lying on the bed, you genuinely think that you are the dream character. A tiger chases you in the dream. You think the tiger that is chasing you is real. You run from it, it makes you suffer. You ask yourself "Why does life have to be this hard? How to get the tiger to stop chasing me?" but it doesn't stop.
Then you wake up & realize that the dream character and tiger and events that transpired in the dream are all illusory. There wasn't really a tiger. It certainly felt like there was, but now you realize it isn't substantial. Suddenly the tiger isn't so scary anymore. You realize whatever happens in the dream can't have an effect on you, once you recognize the nature of the dream.
Extinction of the self doesn't mean extinction of feelings, thoughts, emotions, situations, body, mind etc. It just means realizing their true nature. In the dream, you can experience emotions, feel things, experience happenings. But they don't harm you if you wake up. Similarly, when you realize what you are beyond this body, beyond this mind, suffering ceases. When you 'extinguish the self', you still have a personality, feelings, connections and various experiences. But they don't harm you because you understand their nature.

It's foremost good to get really adequate to the teachings by oneself, as, for example, the Sublime Buddha taught nobody the extinguishing the self, and teachings are gradually taught as well, good householder.
So for now it would be good to, if by oneself allready that firm there, to speak in praise of virtue, of reasonable goodwills benefit and the blessing of generosity, as well as what/who would be worthy of gifts and why.

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


text:
How to understand this teaching: "Whenever others treat me badly, may I accept this defeat myself and offer the victory to others"
Below is one of the verses from the "Eight Verses for Training the Mind" by Geshe Langri Tangpa

Whenever others, because of their jealousy, treat me badly
with abuse, insult, slander, or in other unjust ways, may I accept this
defeat myself and offer the victory to others.

When I read about the Bodhisattva path, I always come across teachings such as the above, which seem to espouse 'accepting defeat' as the highest virtue & a way to cultivate spiritually.
Perhaps I am missing some context, but teachings like these seem to me like they are promoting unhealthy codependent relationships with an abuser; which ultimately benefits no one. When one accepts defeat & offers victory to the abuser, doesn't this further encourage the abuser to continue his abusive tendencies, thereby worsening their own karma? It would seem to me that the compassionate thing to do would not be to 'accept defeat' but to 'stand up in instances of injustice'; not in the way of revenge or eye-for-an-eye, but in a skillful way that protects others from the abuser's actions?
'Accepting defeat' seems like a way of dismissing the situation or worse still, trying to gain power by declaring a moral victory over the abuser ("look at me, I am so kind and compassionate, I am willing to forgive you and accept defeat!"). The abuser will continue projecting his hurt on another victim & doesn't learn in the end.

It reminds me of something a Young Quaker (i.e. a Pacifist) once said to me -- "I'll discuss anything with anyone; but if it turns into an argument I'll say 'You're right.", and walk away".

It appears that this phrasing in particular is specific to Geshe Langri Tangpa. A google search yields some interesting results, but maybe you have read them.

"Giving the Victory to Others" - on Study Buddhism by Berzin Archives
"Accepting defeat and offering the victory" by Ven. Thubten Chonyi

I think that here, as is often the case, the teaching is abstracted into common terms like "defeat" and "victory" because the author considered them analogous. I believe the intended behaviour the quote in question is referring to is equanimity and not giving in to aggression. We do not consider the harmful actions of others to be good, but we do not give in to retaliation or to becoming upset over it because we can control our own behaviour.
I don't, however, think that the intended meaning is to ignore the harm but only to accept it as done. One can still, as in your example, take action to distance oneself from an abusive situation (though this can be hard at times). In practical terms one should absolutely take action to avoid further abuse if one is in an abusive situation.
Most situation one comes across where one is treated unfairly are (thankfully) less serious than an abusive relationship, and there it is easier to "turn the other cheek". Hope I got at your question somewhat.

This is a mind training. The idea isn't to become timid or somehow start believing that somehow you truly deserve the abuse or that your abuser is doing nothing wrong by abusing you. Emphatically not!
No, the idea here is to refrain from doing what most of us habitually do in such a situation - lash back with self-righteous anger, swear at fate for giving us this unfair circumstance, pity ourselves for having to endure such abuse, bemoan existence for putting this abusive person in our path, etc.,.
In fact, the training is not only to refrain from doing those above non-virtuous actions and or cultivating such harmful minds, but rather to cultivate virtuous minds like forgiveness, compassion, patience and so forth - to take the opportunity of our abuse to plant a seed of virtue!
The virtuous mind understands the abuser and the abuse are just that: bad and unjust. However, instead of reacting in ways that would harm all parties involved the training encourages us to react with generosity and forgiveness. Who knows! such generosity and forgiveness can (sometimes) have powerful effects upon the abuser as well. They might feel regret for what they've done which could be the first step in them not doing it again.
BTW, this thought training does not entail trying to provoke the abuse or to 'just take it.' By all means if someone is abusing you and you can remove yourself from the abuse without causing harm or engaging in those non-virtuous minds, then by all means you should! In fact, that best thing to do for the abuser as well is to compassionately and proactively stop the abuse/abuser.

I have qualms about passages like this, if only because they are easy to misinterpret. The idea is sound enough for those who grasp it, but...
The principle here is similar to the concept of civil disobedience or passive resistance used by Thoreau and Gandhi (respectively): one causes the aggressor to defeat himself, by making the aggressor see himself as a beast attacking an unresisting human. In Buddhist terms this starts with two recognitions:

That conflict is always one egoic self attacking another egoic self, and...
That an attacking egoic self desperately wants to call out a counterattack from the defending egoic self, because that counterattack justifies and validates the original attack.

This is all very much a karmic pattern: the ego using conflict to magnify its own self-importance and sense of place in the world.
The dharmic approach to the issue is to allow the attacking egoic self to defeat one's own egoic self. Part of the Buddhist understanding is that the egoic self isn't 'real,' so allowing it to be defeated doesn't hurt us in any 'real' way. In fact, allowing the conflict to dwindle without giving any egoic response allows our true nature to stand forth, and forces the attacker to stumble and jump back, the same way he would if he threw a punch only to discover that the thing he tried to punch was a ghost, and his fist passed right through it. Without an egoic response his own egoic action suddenly looks febrile and deluded.
The difficult part of this is finding the correct posture of non-reaction. Flinching, cowering, or surrendering are just as egoic as attacking back; they reflect an acceptance that the attack has the potential to damage something 'real.' Releasing the defeat of the egoic self as a matter of no consequence takes a good deal of presence and a solid practice. But we all start where we are, and reflecting on the issue can help mediate such conflicts even if one can't fully reach the goal.

To walk on and leave (in gratitude, with appreciation and understanding! other wouldn't work), with metta [common people call such defeated, release], doesn't require any relation any more, so why worry about unhealthy relations here? It's of course unhealthy to maintain harmful relations and at least, even pleasing relations are harmful as well so the Sublime Buddha goes even a step further then the Pathfinder-sectarians with 'brutal' metta over all (as means to be able to leave, having given all), free released.
Truly, it would be, is actually, foolish to even desire (in any case, again and again harmful) relation with all thinking to be required or able to take all with him... isn't one bond, depending on relation (aside of such leading out), nourishing it, not actually a loser, defeated by craving, again and again?
As for good householders ideas on compassion and justice, good to gain the side of wisdom here.
May he be able to take this de-feat(non-feed of defilements) here and turn toward peace and secure.


text:
While in Jhāna to walk or (reaching) Jhāna is not possible while walking?
How could one come, if any experiances and understanding, to the idea that one in Jhana isn't able to walk, not to speak of to listen and talk?
Maybe there is a different between sitting, standing, walking, lying down?
And what did the Sublime Buddha taught and tell about it?
What would be the effect on Satipatthana is such ideas would be correct? Bond to sit, 7 days, weeks, month, years... or how would a living one quick react?
And refined: would an on-house-holder be able to undertake a jhanic walk-about? Could a wanderer of other sects, say one on the Jakobs-path gain 'accidently' Jhana while developing the Brahma-Viharas?

Related: Remaining in first jhana, while walking, talking, eating

Based on Piya Tan's analysis of the sutta Venāga,pura Sutta (A 3.63) and his quote of the traditional commentaries, we can see that it's possible to sit, walk, stand or even recline while remaining in jhana attainment, up to the fourth jhana.
For full translation of the sutta by Piya Tan, please see Venāga,pura Sutta (A 3.63). For alternative translations by Ven. Sujato and Ven. Bodhi, please see SuttaCentral's AN 3.63.

While in the (Sangha) Uposatha Sutta (A 4.190), the Buddha
describes the mental state of the saints in general, “Bhikshus, there
are monks in this community of monks who dwell having attained the
state of devas... the state of brahmas... the imperturbable... the
state of noble ones,” in the Venāga,pura Sutta, the Buddha describes
his own mental state, but omitting mention of the formless attainments
(ānejja-p,-patta).
The Buddha says that he attains these states “whenever I like, with
neither difficulty nor trouble.” The Commentary explains that
“(attains) with neither difficulty,” that is, “(attains)without
difficulty” (akicchā,lābhi), means that it is attained “without
unsatisfactoriness” (adukkha,lābhī), that is, painlessly. The phrase
“nor trouble,” that is, “without trouble,” means “obtaining
abundantly” (vipula,lābhī) (AA 2:293). These words come from a
popular stock passage on the saint’s ease at attaining dhyana, thus:

Here and now, attaining to the four dhyanas, the higher mind, as he
wishes, without any difficulty, without any trouble [in abundance], he
dwells happily.

The Buddha adds that when he is in each of those states
(evam,bhuta), whether he is sitting, walking, standing or reclining,
he is similarly in a state that is heavenly (dibba), or perfect
(brahma), or noble (ariya). In connection with the first two
states — the heavenly and the perfect — the Commentary says:

Having attained the four dhyanas, he does the walking, that is, the
“heavenly walk.” Having arisen from the attainment, too, he does the
walk. Standing and the rest, too, are like that. (AA 2:294)

In this exegesis, supramundane dhyana (lok’uttara jhāna) is meant,
that is, the dhyana of the Buddha and the arhats, who can conduct
their daily lives, even sleep, in dhyana. Moggallāna, for example,
could at once get into the fourth dhyana to perform various psychic
wonders.
Venāga,pura Sutta (A 3.63)

Acting postures base on five strings, color sound smell taste and body-feeling (temperature hardness movement) because we can't do any physical acting without five senses, so acting postures are the opposite of Jhana directly according to MN13 MahadukkhakkhandhaSutta.
You can try it, taping your eyes and stuffing your ears then run. And you can understand it by memorizing the 4th chapter of AbhidhammatthaSangaha, mind processing chapter.
However, it is possible to walk with Jhana by the genius people who practice each Jhana again and again until getting Jhana Mastery level (vasi).
How they can do it?
They switch the mind process with unimaginable speed.
Attaining Jhana a few millisecond then thinking of five strings a few millisecond to walk then attaining Jhana... switching like this until the end of walking.
This is why MN22 putting Posture section after Anapanassati section, and DN10 Subhasutta putting Posture sub-section after IndriyaSamvara sub-section in AdhiCittaSikkha main-section.
Also, KN Kuddakapatha MettaSutta...

And let him too with love for all the world
Maintain unbounded consciousness in being
Above, below, and all round in between,
Untroubled, with no enemy or foe.
And while he stands or walks or while he sits
Or while he lies down, free from drowsiness,
Let him resolve upon this mindfulness:
This is Skillful Practitioner here, they say.


text:
When practicing Mahasi-style meditation, should we label rising and falling, or just distractions? The instructions seem contradictory
In Mahasi Sayadaw's meditation instructions, he says "you will
find the abdomen rising when you breathe in, and falling when you breathe out. The rising
should be noted mentally as 'rising', and the falling as `falling' " but in Practice Insight Meditation it says "never verbally repeat the words, rising, falling, and do not think of rising and falling as words".
This seems to imply that we shouldn't label rising and falling at all, either out loud, or mentally. But when we note distraction we are instructed to give them a one-word label.
So this seems to me to be suggesting that we know rising and falling with direct awareness only, but we label distractions. But, equally, how does one note 'rising' and 'falling' without using the word, at least mentally?
So my question is. What should we label (if anything) rising, falling, and distractions? Or just distractions? Or maybe everything should just be noted with direct awareness?

They are not contradictory because they are two different methods of achieving the same result, Samatha. One tells you to label certain things, one tells you not to. Pick one and follow through. How do you know which one to follow? Experiment & see the results for yourself. Better yet, ask your teacher if you have one. But don't mix them.

how does one note 'rising' and 'falling' without using the word, at least mentally?

Through sensation. When you feel something, you don't have to mentally label it. For example, right now you are experiencing thousands of sensations but you are not labelling every single one of them. The weight of your body on the chair, the touch of your clothes against your skin, the wind, the ambient sounds going on in your room, the light hitting your eyes from the screen you are reading this. You can feel all this, without creating labels. That's how you note 'rising' and 'falling' through body sensation only.
The labelling is a habit that can be subdued. If you feel like you can't help but label it, then maybe Sayadaw's method is more suitable for you.

But these instructions are both given in "Basic Exercise 1" in Practical Insight Meditation. Because of this, I don't think they are intended to describe two different methods.


text:
Can't find much info on Tsem Rinpoche, was he a genuine lama?
Does anyone know anything about Tsem Rinpoche?
I watched a few of his talks on Youtube recently, and found him to be incredibly charismatic.

Rather than answer your question directly, you might find it helpful to think about these questions instead: How do you know if anyone is a genuine lama or not? How do you know Dalai Lama is genuine? How do you know Khenchen Lama is genuine?
You might also want to ask; why is it important for you that the lama is genuine? How would that affect your relationship with the lama and the teaching?
If I tell you so-and-so is genuine, you can go to the internet and find another person who will say that no, he isn't genuine. If I tell you he isn't genuine, you can also find another person who will say that yes, he is genuine. What determines whether you trust a person or not?
Hope this is helpful

It was, thanks.  I could have put in a little more thought & reflection before asking my question (makes me cringe tbh)

I'm thinking it might be helpful to follow the Buddhas advice (or plain old common sense):  just try out the teachings if they are clear and make sense, and see if they work.

While great and obvious advice, I would actually point out and refute what you said, simply by the fact that a lama is just a title, an honorific or educational title. So the simple fact is to see if this person is a genuine lama, you would need to see his geshe degree, then his references for X amount of years as a teacher (title of rinpoche) and his status as the highest teacher or abbot of a specific sect or monastery....simply that!

Please read "An abridged biography of H.E. the 25th Tsem Rinpoche". Apparently, he also published an autobiography book entitled "The Promise: A Tsem Rinpoche Biography".
On this page entitled "I’m Requesting Ordination in 1987", you can find info and a Youtube video on Tsem Rinpoche's meeting the 14th Dalai Lama and he is given assurance that he will be ordained a monk by the Dalai Lama, if he goes to India.
Tsem Rinpoche wrote:

Then in December 1987, myself and two other boys
had the fortune to spend three hours with His Holiness and senior
sangha like His Eminence Denma Locho Rinpoche. That is when I received
my ordination vows. His Holiness gave me my vows, cut my hair and
touched my robes to bless it.
Can you imagine, His Holiness did this for me!! I was so happy, I had
finally become a monk after years of wanting to be one, starting from
a very young age. Now, I was 22 and had just became ordained!!! It was
a lifetime’s dream come true to be a monk and His Holiness, the
highest of the high, ordained me himself!!! I was given the ordination
name ‘Tenzin Zopa‘ by His Holiness.


text:
Can someone be literally reborn in lower realms due to unskillful thoughts and emotions?
I often wonder myself if the buddhist teachings says that realms are mental states, realities based on external conditions or a combination of the two. Why is that? For example:

"There's the case, headman, where a certain teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' A disciple has faith in that teacher, and the thought occurs to him, 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: "All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell." There are living beings that I have killed. I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.
SN 42.8

If realms are realities as I supposed before, then can someone be reborn in hell or even as an animal because of the feeling of guilty, even irrational guilty, while acting correctly in his life? For example someone who dies in agony or anger because he lives with a demanding and abusive person and becomes regretful about it? Or someone who suffer prejudices about his/her color, culture, religion, sexual orientation or appearance, with threats and phrases like "You'll be reborn in hell because of this or that", if that person holds onto those views, that could be the case? I also remember seeing somewhere, not sure if here, Quora or Reddit, about a case of a monk that did something very little like killing a gnat or a plant and because of his exaggerated fear, was reborn as a cobra.
What about the opposite, that is, a mass murderer like Hitler or Stalin that firmly clings to the view that he's doing the right thing and because of that believes that he deserves a good destination, will his beliefs and thoughts overcome his deeds? Or the case of catholic inquisition with their brutal torture methods and other assertive means, if they believe that they're doing "God's work", or simply a psychopath that doesn't care about what he/she have done.
Here's another passage:

"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell."
SN 56.102-113

As everything is "suññatā", what is heaven or hell varies depending on context, culture, eras, individual, but I believe most of us will agree that being born in a place like Afghanistan, for example, would probably feel like hell, when our most basic needs aren't satisfied, living in a constant feeling of fear, angry and misery and it's not just me saying that, as we can see in [1], [2] and [3]. Let alone cases like Nigeria: People With Mental Health Conditions Chained, Abused. And I really want to be wrong when I think about even the remote possibility of being born on those conditions by accident, wrong view or thoughts. It's not like you're destined to suffering or pain living in places like these or destined to happiness living in Finland, but external conditions and environment definitely have an impact on our well-being.
All of that is because the buddhist doctrine is the most down to earth one, with irrefutable teachings like impermanence, non-self, dissatisfaction and emptiness, that can be realized through logic and rational thinking even similar to that used in calculus and thus equip us with a more reliable and verifiable knowledge than the stoic logos, the christian god or the hindu brahma. So Siddarta at his time probably had struggled with the same questions and found his way to deal with them while maintaining peace of mind, he must knows what he's talking about, although I believe that as time passes and cultures changes, only the three marks of existence and four noble truths remains as a useful logic teachings. I don't consider myself a buddhist but even with it's secular approach, the philosophy there is undoubtful useful to our lives.
I know I've been focusing too much on the negative side of life and world there, but if I can find a way out of these thoughts by logical and verifiable arguments, rather than just belief, I think it'll be worth it. I don't expect an absolute answer to this like a guarantee of a method of achieving good rebirths every time but at least some guidelines so that I can return to the common sense that situations like those I mentioned are rare and most of us fall in the intermediary, mediocre life situation, like phenomena in nature generally follows the mathematical normal distribution and that most of us will have the basic means to lead our life to something with the minimal dignity if we can do the very basic.
That being said, I'm sorry for any mistakes or errors while making a question, as English is not my mother language and this is my first time using this site. Thanks in advance.

In a prior life, Venerable Mahāmoggallāna was known as Dūsī. Dūsī was prone to negative thoughts. And those negative thoughts led to negative speech:

MN50:12.4: “Come, all of you, abuse, attack, harass, and trouble the ethical mendicants of good character.

And those negative thoughts pursued further led to negative action:

MN50:21.1: Then Māra Dūsī took possession of a certain boy, picked up a rock, and hit Vidhura on the head, cracking it open.

And with that transgression, the gates of hell opened up:

MN50:21.3: Then the Buddha Kakusandha turned his whole body, the way that elephants do, to look back, saying,
MN50:21.4: ‘This Māra Dūsī knows no bounds.’
MN50:21.5: And with that look Māra Dūsī fell from that place and was reborn in the Great Hell.

So negative thoughts pursued relentlessly do open up the gates of Hell--for a very very long time.

MN50:22.3: Then the wardens of hell came to me and said,
MN50:22.4: ‘When spike meets spike in your heart,
MN50:22.5: you will know that
MN50:22.6: you’ve been roasting in hell for a thousand years.’
MN50:23.1: I roasted for many years, many centuries, many millennia in that Great Hell.
MN50:23.2: For ten thousand years I roasted in the annex of that Great Hell, experiencing the pain called ‘this is emergence’.

However, this story is told by Venerable Mahāmoggallāna himself. So that hellish journey did end with the eventual emergence and rebirth of Venerable Mahāmoggallāna. After much pain it did end well.
So we all have a choice to pursue negative thoughts to hellish outcome. But we also have the choice to simply see such thoughts as negative and let them go, thinking, "this is a negative thought and therefore a useless thought." The key here is to know a thought as negative. Thoughts arise on their own, bubbling up as they do. But they are just thoughts and thoughts should be examined:

MN78:9.18: ‘These are unskillful thoughts.’
MN78:9.20: ‘Unskillful thoughts stem from this.’
MN78:9.22: ‘Here unskillful thoughts cease without anything left over.’
MN78:9.24: ‘Someone practicing like this is practicing for the cessation of unskillful thoughts.’

And what is the root of suffering, of negative thoughts?

SN42.11:2.10: ‘All the suffering that arose in the past was rooted and sourced in desire.
SN42.11:2.11: For desire is the root of suffering. the future will be rooted and sourced in desire.
SN42.11:2.12: All the suffering that will arise in the future will be rooted and sourced in desire.
SN42.11:2.13: For desire is the root of suffering.’”

And hell is simply extreme suffering. So the answer is yes.

That's a good answer, if we were to think about negative thoughts snowballing with negative speech and actions, that makes a lot of sense and it's fair. My question was more about someone who limits himself or herself with negative thoughts and with negative thoughts I mean guilty, fear or shame, like thinking one is a bad person and deserves being into hell, but still does right action and speech. I'm not talking about angry, envy, killing intention etc. The core point of my question is if thoughts and emotions can come before in priority than speech and actions on the fruits of karma.

Of course knowing that possibility I would train myself whenever possible to ignore/avoid negative thoughts. But what about those who don't have this opportunity due to ignorance, mental illness or simply a hellish life snowballing into more fear and negative thoughts? I just don't want to think that such absurd possibility like a prideful torturer or mass murderer reborning into higher realms while those who live virtuously could be reborn into lower realms just because of thoughts and beliefs can be something very likely to happen.

Thanks for the clarification. I've added additional material. However, your question is so broad that it is actually difficult to answer succinctly. For example, there is actually a sutta that discusses how some "bad" people end up in heavens and some "good" people end up in hell. StackExchange is designed to address simple questions. Broader discussions are possible in other forums such as https://discourse.suttacentral.net/

Oh, right. Thanks for the information and for the answers.

There's the Right View with effluents or taints, according to MN 117 and it's also related to the theme of reflection in AN 5.57, where one should reflect that he or she is the owner and heir of their karma.
So, to think of yourself as a person, with parents, with this world and the next world, and would be experiencing the results of your karma, and would be the owner and heir of your karma, is actually wholesome and skillful, because it promotes virtuous thinking and living, and it will diminish misconduct. It is also in accordance with the Right View with effluents or taints.
In fact, one should not just think about the afterlife. You should remember that the results of your karma can bite you even the very next moment or the very next day.
And yes, someone can be reborn into lower worlds due to unskillful thinking and thoughts. (Without clicking the links, you read the "basic" answer and if you click the links, you get the "advanced" answer).

What ever thoughts based on wrong view leads downwardly and even if one had lead a generous and virtuoso life, if wrong view at death, evil thoughts based on it, one wouldn't meet much pleasing next. Yet right view, here lead upwardly, even if spend a not so good life, good hpuseholder. And if even right view, of which is a path factor (eg. Noble truth), such would lead toward the track beyond.
Good to mind that and train eager, so stop gaming and youtubing right now.
de-powered by:


text:
Which meditation is less likely to have negative effects or be practiced wrong?
I've heard a meditation teacher mention that samatha is less likely to be done wrong while using a visual object. I've also read about how mindfulness meditation may sometimes lead to negative effects in the practitioner.
What is the type of meditation that is least likely to cause such possible negative effects, or to be practised incorrectly? Am I right in thinking compassion meditation is more accessible and less likely to cause harm?

Right immersion is preceded by right mindfulness, right effort, right livelihood, right action, right speech, right thought and right view. These prerequisites are critical and should be investigated and practiced first. For example, before meditating on compassion, shouldn't we ask, "what is the right view for compassion?". Without right view, how could we even get to right immersion?
Prerequisites are important. And seven right steps preceding right immersion is a lot to consider. Is there then one simple thing to consider as a prerequisite for immersion? Fortunately, the Buddha instructs that the spectrum of ethics is a single prerequisite for exploring immersion:

DN34:1.6.102: Five spectrums of the teaching:
DN34:1.6.103: ethics, immersion, wisdom, freedom, and knowledge and vision of freedom.

Indeed, in MN8, the Buddha gently scolds Cunda for diving in too readily to immersion without considering proper prerequisites. Immersion without ethics is just peaceful meditations:

MN8:11.4: But in the training of the Noble One these are not called ‘self-effacement’;
MN8:11.5: they’re called ‘peaceful meditations’.

Living ethically, we build a strong base for right immersion:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’
MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’
MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’
MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’
MN8:12.7: ‘Others will speak divisively, but here we will not speak divisively.’
MN8:12.8: ‘Others will speak harshly, but here we will not speak harshly.’
MN8:12.9: ‘Others will talk nonsense, but here we will not talk nonsense.’
MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’
(omitted for brevity...)

Living each moment with a heart open to love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity requires skill. And guarding that heart with right mindfulness also requires skill. Living each moment ethically is the skillful practice that allows us to meditate well. That's why the spectrum of ethics precedes immersion. And only after a long discourse on ethics does the Buddha encourage Cunda to meditate:

MN8:17.3: Here are these roots of trees, and here are these empty huts. Practice absorption, Cunda! Don’t be negligent! Don’t regret it later! This is my instruction.”

Living with love allows us to meditate with love. Living with compassion allows us to meditate with compassion. Living with rejoicing allows us to meditate with rejoicing. Living with equanimity allows us to meditate with equanimity.
And in return, meditation gives us the insights to fully live without the limits of greed, hate and delusion.

MN43:35.2: Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of limits.
MN43:35.3: A mendicant who has ended the defilements has given these up, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, and obliterated them, so they are unable to arise in the future.
MN43:35.4: The unshakable release of the heart is said to be the best kind of limitless release of the heart.
MN43:35.5: That unshakable release of the heart is empty of greed, hate, and delusion.


text:
What is the meaning and origin of “Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhasa”?
What is

the meaning word by word
the meaning of the whole sentence
the origin

of “Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhasa”?

Related: What does the term 'Sammasambuddha' mean?

Namo -- Homage (perhaps from a root meaning to bend)
Tassa -- to him
Bhagavato -- usually translated "blessed one" or "fortunate one"
Arahato -- I'm not sure whether this means deserving (perhaps deserving of homage) or fully enlightened (see also here)
Samma Sambuddhasa -- see SN 22.58; see also the definition for sammā

As to origin the phrase is verbatim in some suttas for example in SN 7.1, AN 5.194, and Thig 1.1.

Thanks for pointing out the verbatim locations. I missed that when reading the English. :D

Good householder: To extend a little the answer by good householder Chris.
Bhagavato: The Liberal, The (real) Giver, The Liberated One
Arahato: Perfect One, Complete One
Sammāsambuddho: The rightly Self-Awakened One
Meaning: It's an expression of homage and deep gratitude as well great respect (all of what is required to be able to receive his gift, the Fianna)
Origin: such, if not taken just as verbalisation. for "ritual/convention of paying respect", arises at the stage of of Stream Enter ("real Buddhist") where doubts in regard of the unexcelled Sublimity of the Sublime Buddha decays: eh. Noble Sangha.
Usually cited before teaching or receiving Dhamma and at any ceremony at the beginning.
One historical use:

...Then King Pasenadi Kosala, rising from his seat and arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, paid homage in the direction of the Blessed One with his hands palm-to-palm in front of his heart, and exclaimed three times:

Homage to the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened!
Homage to the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened!
Homage to the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened!

Arahato = Ari(Enemy) - Hat(Kill). The word means, one who has killed all his enemies. (Sounds Strange right?). No!!! Buddha didn't kill anyone.
In Buddhism, no person is considered an Enemy. The real enemies are the Mental defilements/ Impurities/ Sankharas that can cause endless rebirths, and Samsara (Flow of Birth, Ageing, Disease, Death, and the suffering associated with each stage).
There are other words Arahant, Arihant, Arahat, Arihat.. All mean the same thing.


text:
Is there a compendium of enlightenment stories (about Arhats and/or Bodhisattvas)?
If I'm getting this right it is/was customary to utter a poem shortly after realizing enlightenment. Are these verses and/or maybe stories and accounts surrounding these beings collected somewhere?

Yes. For the Theravada tradition's stories of the elder monks and nuns, please see the following books of the Khuddaka Nikaya (the minor collection):

Theragatha (Verses of the Elder Monks) or here
Therigatha (Verses of the Elder Nuns) or here
Thera Apadana (Past Life Legends of the Elder Monks)
Theri Apadana (Past Life Legends of the Elder Nuns)

For e.g. you can read the story of Sunita the Outcaste who became an arhat elder.

https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta/minor/kn describes the latter two as "legends of" not "biographies of", I quote -- The “Legends of the Senior Monks” contains 563 stories in verse telling the past life deeds of various senior monks. It is a much later counterpart to the Theragāthā, referring to many of the same monks. But whereas the Theragāthā verses relate the monks’ practice of meditation and mindfulness in this life, the Legends typically relate how they became awakened in this life by making an offering a Buddha in the distant past...

...  and making a dedication to be reborn so as to become awakened in the future. The “Legends of the Senior Monks” has as companion the “Legends of the Senior Nuns”. Both these are late texts, and lack counterparts in the northern canons.

@ChrisW Updated to "Past Life Legends".


text:
Input and output mental phenomenas?
coming across such an distinction here: how, if, should such be understood in Dynamic context?
Can deeds ever be an input phenomena?

Yes, of course. In the following sutta, we read that a warrior who strives and exerts himself in battle with the intention to kill others, reinforces violent tendencies. It may also cause psychological trauma, according to the psychology article that comes after that.

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus
striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior
strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &
slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two
destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or
the animal womb."
SN 42.3

Robert T. Muller, a professor of psychology, wrote in the article "Death Becomes Us: The Psychological Trauma of Killing" (Feb 21, 2014):

Killing is often misrepresented in film as far easier than it is. In
reality, the “duty” is mentally taxing, leaving most soldiers
physically ill in the moment and often haunted by nightmares for a
lifetime. Being responsible for ending the life of another human is a
significant source of trauma ...
Apart from about two percent of individuals classified as
“psychopaths,” who, because of deeply rooted personality flaws are
unphased by the act of killing, most soldiers are unprepared for the
task of ending the life of another human being. Many veterans report
that ending even one life is enough to haunt them with painful
memories and sometimes flashbacks.
Soldiers who have engaged in close combat are left with a much higher
likelihood of developing post traumatic stress disorder then their
counterparts who did not.

This is supported by the following sutta quote:

Anyone who kills living creatures creates dangers and threats both in
the present life and in lives to come, and experiences mental pain and
sadness. Anyone who refrains from killing living creatures creates no
dangers and threats either in the present life or in lives to come,
and doesn’t experience mental pain and sadness. So that danger and
threat is quelled for anyone who refrains from killing living
creatures.
AN 10.92

AN 10.92 also explains how the five precepts represent deeds that help purify the mind.

Like most, as if good householder responses instead to the question toward what ever self developed windmill: to give an input and may he do with it like he thinks to be fit.


text:
False Speech for forming a non exist Buddhism Club
Dad admitted due to covid. Me, mum and Dad stayed in the same house so me and mum were close contact yet need to quarantined. I was tested negative with no syndrome for all 10 days quarantine.
Mum had flu syndrome in the day 3 of quarantine. She was reluctant to perform PCR swab test because it's quite expensive. Mum can be quite stubborn too most of time. I believe most old folks will have this problem.
I can't slowly or patiently talk to her too face to face as she doesn't even wear a mask neither i need a PPE suit nor special wearing to communicate with her for safety purpose.
I hire another care taker that found online, pay him and request him to pretend as Buddhism community club to offer her free PCR swab test. Mum only accept in this way. I can't delay this as mum start developing psychosis mental illness too during this quarantine period. She will only feel much better when receiving free stuffs. If she found positive then need send to quarantine center immediately. At least me will not be infected. If all down, then who is gonna work and feed food to us?
Mum indeed recovering well with mild syndrome. She is much happier too after this non exist Buddhism club care taker exist, received a lot free stuffs and start to accept Buddhism teaching too.
Q) Did i committed a false speech fault by getting a "non exist" Buddhism club to offer help? What will be the punishment in this case base on Buddhism teaching ?

That's ok. You and your hired caretaker can become a small unregistered Buddhist club of your own, providing support and care for your mother. In this case then, you would be speaking the truth. If you feel that you still need to punish yourself, please see this video - Ajahn Brahm prescribed 50 strokes of the cat.

I really like that answer.  Perfect!

'Yes but the end goal is something good. I think that would overweigh the bad here'
As such ideas would be an.opening for what ever excuse, that is why the precepts are laid out simply and clear by the Sublime Buddha. Wrong speech stays wrong speech. Whether one does wrong for ones mother, friends, the Ling, even the Buddha, for oneself..., the effects of such kamma (deeds) wouldn't change. There is no such as rightly doing wrong and there are most alternatives ass well, ways not require unskilled deeds.
And as good householder sees right here: this going into defilements ideas, at least, doesn't make him free of remorse and doubtless in regard of his blameless virtues. So always acting on simple and clear kusala Dhamma to avoid such and keep grow open, let on walk on.
In case trapped in a fault, confessing, after seeing it, toward a admirable friend who hasn't same fault, and resolve not tp do it again, would free him to walk on, get out of the hole and the deeds ripping would be easier taken.
Best is always to try the good way based on faith out to know what what abstain and letting go (of unskillful) means. Then one might experience the different in of being debtless.

If you are Buddhist and have taken on the precepts then you broke the 4th one. The precepts are not a reward/punishment system.

Yes but the end goal is something good. I think that would overweigh the bad here.

I thought he was asking if making something up was lying.  I didn't see it as question about whether the end justifies the means.

Did i committed a false speech fault by getting a "non exist" Buddhism club to offer help?
I'm not sure what you mean by "false speech" but here is how the Vinaya defines "a deliberate lie":

Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one
wants to communicate based on that aim.

You might also want to read the sutta quotes chosen on the subject of Right speech.
What will be the punishment in this case base on Buddhism teaching ?
I don't know. I guess it's easy to imagine possible consequences, including "feeling remorse"; and possibly "not being trusted in future if you develop a reputation as a liar."
Also read MN 61.
For example perhaps you want to be good, or want to be seen as good -- therefore you say that you did something good -- but, if you say it as a lie instead of doing it, then one of the harmful consequences is that the good thing isn't done! Similarly if you say you stopped doing something bad, but haven't: then the bad thing isn't stopped. In short, any "training" or "progress" (in the path) doesn't happen, only continued samsara.
Looking at the Noble Truths, "suffering" arises with a craving for things to be other than as they are -- which is closely associated with (i.e. more-or-less the same as the motive for) lying.
When there's a temptation to tell a falsehood, perhaps it's worth considering, "this is something that I wish were true" -- for example, "wouldn't it be good if there were a Buddhist community club" -- and then instead of telling an easy lie, maybe act to make that wish a reality.
Or perhaps something else, like understanding why it's not a reality.

That said, the example that you gave seems to be a form of lying that's similar to the Parable of the burning house -- i.e. attracting her to do something by telling her of something "shiny" or attractive although unreal. Note that's quoting the Lotus Sutra, I think that different schools of Buddhism may differ on whether that kind of falsehood might be considered skilful, ethical.
Theravada Buddhists (monks especially) might be careful not to lie, even as a joke.


text:
The Impact of Violence on Our Concentration
Our reality is quite violent.
Observing the violence of others causes mental conflict, And it will ruin your state of mind during meditation.
What should be the reaction of a person to violence?
Put Nirvana aside, Can you even think of a simple meditation when there is growing violence around you?
How to deal with violence?

Well, first... I've meditated in a lot of different places in my life, and I have yet to experience any sort of violence while sitting. Worst case I can think of was once when a bunch of hyped-up kids came running through the meditation room, but I was already deep in when that happened, so that was just, you know: that. We generally choose to meditate in peaceful spots — this fosters the development of the practice — so the risk of violence during meditation is extremely remote. Not impossible, granted, but remote.
And yes, I've intentionally misconstrued the question so that I could make a point. I know you were talking about violence in the surrounding world, but part of the practice is to create a mental context in which we (for some short period of time) don't have anything to do, don't have anything to think, don't have anything to worry about or fuss over, all so that we can practice putting down the egoic mind. There is no violence here and now within that meditative space; if we are disturbed by violence anyway it is violence that our mind has brought with us from somewhere or somewhen else. In meditation we should focus on removing our attachments to those thoughts of violence, and save worrying about the violence itself for some other time.
Dealing with violence itself requires perspective and understanding. Violence is merely one of the more graphic expressions of ignorance. People are caught by a desire — which could be just about anything — and their failure to achieve that desire ties them to more egoic desires: needs to claim respect, protect their sense of self worth, be treated fairly, etc, etc. When they get tangled deeply enough in these psychological knots it limits them so they can't do the 'human' things: compromise, negotiate, cede ground to others, express themselves clearly. All that comes out when they try is tinged by a seething vitriol squeezed through their own bonds. In that state, violence can seem like a normal, effective, reasonable, even pleasurable course of action. People in that state are just primed to explode, because an explosion blows apart the mental bindings they've imposed on themselves for a few moments, allowing them to breathe freely until the knots reassert themselves.
Understood this way, violence isn't something enraging or frightening. It's pitiable, like watching a wounded animal caught in a trap. Is a wounded animal dangerous? Undoubtably yes, but that wouldn't stop most of us from trying to help it. A human caught and wounded in a trap of desire and ignorance is no different. Of course, it's often hard to see that, because we work within a framework where we see animals as innocent (accruing no blame) and humans as potentially malevolent (blame-worthy). But that framework is itself a set of attachments that we should allow meditation to cure us of.

Of course it's not 'putting Nibbana aside', but: the training isn't one of demanding outwardly but of what one can give and The Simile of the Saw may well explain how at least Cetovimutti works, if not instructed in the Dhamma as a whole yet.
And yes, if one has thoughts of ill-will, of what ever reason, in oneself, that is a block for concentration, called one of the five Nivaranas. Therefore the fist: giving (up).


text:
Isn't giving to attain good Kamma "greedy" and therefore Unwholesome (akusala)?
I'm currently reading In the Buddha's Words by Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi. In the introduction to The Way to a Fortunate Rebirth he states that the roots of what make an action unwholesome (akusala) are:

"greed, hated and delusion"

Well that confirms a hypothesis I got from reading Dawkin's The Selfish Gene that 'there are no truly altruistic actions'.
People often give to the needy to feel better, to get good karma, to get into heaven. Whatever the case may be they are giving for "greedy" reasons. They're own gratification in some form or another. There is no such thing as kusala. Unless you have a complete lack of self awareness and/or do it purely on instinct.
Therefore I ask: Is this not a paradox?
Is it even possible under the Dhamma to commit a wholesome act (kusala) like giving, without it being rooted in "greed"? Therefore making all positive actions such as donating to charity, giving to homeless, giving gifts, anything positive is actually unwholesome (akusala)?!
In summary: It's impossible to gain good karma without it being routed in your greed for good karma
I'd appreciate your ideas, discussion and/or answers?

there are no truly altruistic actions
I think that is an 'extreme' view (and therefore 'wrong') -- Buddhism tries to discern a 'middle way' i.e. which avoids extremes -- see also right view.
I believe it's sometimes possible to be kind, benevolent -- to someone you don't know, to a beggar, a child, an animal -- without expecting a personal reward. You do it because you can, because it's the right thing to do, because of compassion (you are "moved by compassion") -- perhaps you see the other as being "like yourself", more specifically you imagine that you feel (or you want to avoid) their pain or need -- perhaps because not doing so would be unthinkable, wrong, something you'd regret, just something for which there is no good reason.
People often give to the needy to feel better, to get good karma, to get into heaven.
Perhaps you're right -- I think there is some doctrine somewhere, that "giving is virtuous and rewarded in heaven", and perhaps some people act on that doctrine expecting it to be true, and so the intention when giving is "transactional".
That isn't my experience, though (if you read my attempted description of motive, above).
See also this footnote to SN 12.22 (my emphasis added):

This provides one of the two main answers to ignorant suggestions that Buddhism is "selfish": (a) since, in terms of absolute truth (cf. SN 1.20, n. 8), all things are "self-less" (anattaa), there is no real basis for selfishness; and (b), as here, since in the relative sense according to which "selves" can be said to exist, the Dhamma is of benefit both to oneself and to others.

Unless you have a complete lack of self awareness and/or do it purely on instinct.
You seem to be saying that it isn't enough to have some awareness of others -- that you have to be "completely lacking in self-awareness" -- which I think is another "extreme".
Also and I don't know about you but I think I do tend to be aware of mostly-only one thing at a time, my capacity for attention is kind of simplistic in that way.
And I think that this (observation or experience of mine) might be "justified" by some Buddhist doctrine -- see for example Awareness of two things -- but I think it's doctrine that I'm not really familiar with i.e. detailed in the Abhidhamma (see "mental phenomena are momentary" or for example Is the determining thought moment (vottopana) based entirely off of past karma?) -- so it's actually quite easy to (at least momentarily) "lack self awareness".
Is it even possible under the Dhamma to commit a wholesome act (kusala) like giving, without it being rooted in "greed"?
Yes I think so. As you quoted, there are "three poisons" i.e. greed hatred, and delusion ... and of the three it's delusion (not greed) that's the "root" i.e. the hardest to uproot or the last become uprooted.
You might see that for example in the Four stages of awakening where "ignorance" (which is akin to delusion) is one of the last "fetters".
But the fact that "desire for rebirth" are also listed among the final fetters might vindicate your proposition too, i.e. that it's hard to do away with that kind of greed and that it's unwholesome.
But according to ibid. one of the first stages of awakening is understanding anatta i.e. abandoning the fetter of "identity view" -- see also the answers to this topic, How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
Not that even greed is easy to uproot, but remember how monks live.
It's impossible to gain good karma without it being routed in your greed for good karma
I think the doctrine of kamma is quite complicated -- or quite abstract, so difficult to understand except when it's related to personal experience.
If you try to study it, for example Kamma: A Study Guide, I think that in summary there is good and bad, or "bright and dark" kamma, kamma (or the fruit of kamma) experienced in heaven and hell -- and that the "noble" path leads to the end of kamma or cessation of kamma (see also What does "ending karma" mean?).
And maybe that (i.e. "cessation") is a simpler or more tractable type of view in Buddhism -- for example, that (according to the "noble truths" and other suttas) there is "suffering, and the cessation of suffering" -- that's related to the cessation of greed (and more specifically attachment).
Also "that which tends towards the cessation of suffering" is I think the definition of "skilful".

Thank you so much. I appreciate your answer more than you may realise.

Sounds like this sort of thinking could deter you from endeavoring to do good and participate in virtuous deeds, so you'd basically be a human, come across the dharma, and leave "this island of treasures" empty-handed because of wrong view.
In the ultimate view there is great equanimity.  Our karma is constructed from action and intention.  We will reap the results of all the karma we create, later or sooner, and in proportion kind and exponential to how we have treated others.
This is a huge obstacle in this era of degeneration because people live in their conceptual mind.  They are not rooted in their bodies or in their senses as much as in they are dancing in their concepts and thoughts.  Body scans work as a strong antidote for anti-doting.
If one was truly separate from the world, seeking liberation from pain and suffering might be selfish because it might be possible to be an independent, enduring, unchanging "self" that extricates (itself) from suffering and pain.  But, as we are interconnected and interdependent with the world and one another, the only thing that resembles a "self" is actually our attachment and our mis-identification with the skandhas as a self.
So, when we increase our karuna (compassion) and weep for all the suffering beings of the world and all the realms, we tap in to our natural abode which is a selfless abiding of awareness.  It's not possible to get to it without compassion.  Basically, we are obsessed with being a leaf on a tree, and when we remember all the other leaves we start to furnish our embodiment back into a whole tree, not just the leaves and branches.  In this analogy, other beings are the other leaves and branches.
Shantideva said "we are all petals on the lotus of life"
Think like this.
Remember that for something to truly exist it needs to be independent, enduring, unchanging.  Can we point to anything that is truly independent of its context, environs, surroundings, interactions and so forth?
Wishing for freedom from suffering or pain is not selfish, it is intelligent.  There cannot be selfishness for a magnanimous mind that has empathy for all.  It is simply "the best path forward."  Until one has compassion that encompasses all sentient beings, one will be operating on a smaller level with smaller ambitions, but even then one will inadvertently help other beings through their own minimization of kleshas and adverse negative emotions and so forth.
I think this sort of question is very self-righteous and arrogant, for it assumes: there is a self, the self does whatever it can to feel good, and therefore anything that is done for the self to feel good is "selfish."  This is based on a faulty premise, so naturally the result is faulty.
Yes, there are three vehicles in Buddha's teaching.  It takes great understanding and great compassion to foster and engender the mighty and noble mind that wishes to liberate all sentient beings.  This comes through study and reflection, and understanding that all beings are just like ourselves, wishing to be free of pain and suffering and wishing to have happiness and bliss and freedom.  In this way we are all very congruent, very near in modus operandi.
At any rate, it is not selfish to want to free oneself from pain, because this is endemic to all sentient life.  It is more selfish to think that the extreme of nihilism or eternalism is valid and to act according to those ideas as if there was no such thing as continuity.  That would be "selfish" because it would truly be unhelpful.  One must be helpful.
In teaching that way, it's clear why one ought to practice and engage in right action and right livelihood.  You gotta get people interested somehow, gotta get the foot in the door so-to-speak.  Then, when people see the benefits, they grow full of ease and comfort and joy.  But they are also confronted with many other beings in their daily lives, who are not happy, who are discontented, who are in pain and suffering from afflictions both self-inflicted and not.  Then, compassion and empathy grow.  Then, the bodhisattva ideal takes root.  One is not doing it just for oneself, but one knows that there are beneficial results to practice -- the best possible results for our Experiential Reality (that is interdependent with all Life) come about only through practice and when there is an opening one can access the depth of honesty, the depth of real experiencing.
So in my opinion, it is mainly a matter of mis-identification.
Mis-identification with the skandas as a self that is permanent and unchanging and independent from the rest of the cosmos/matrix.
And mis-identification with an idea as somehow superior to the infallibility of cause and conditions and effect.
If I give someone water to drink because I think I will be rewarded in the future -- firstly, that's true, secondly that's skillful means on the part of the teacher.  I help someone, they are truly helped, suffering in the universe is diminished, everyone wins.  Plus, it is good for the giver.  "The giver always goes to a better place."  It is true, it is flawless knowledge, it is genuine and real Dharma.
But then one says "Oh pish posh you are only doing that to benefit yourself in the future."
Well, think about it.  Who is going to benefit?  If I am broken down and unable to help others, I must receive help or endure the suffering.  If I am in a good position, I can help more people.  I have been clinging to a material reality and the skandhas for so many go-arounds that I perceive my skandhas to be independent, enduring, unchanging, and fail to see how there could not possibly be an actual "self" in them.  That said, I must liberate myself before I can liberate others, and what we have come across here is a stepping-stone to the heart of great empathy and great karuna and great love.  Yes, do so out of a wish to help yourself at first, and then see the equality of self and other.  See the equalness in wishing to be free of pain and discomfort in the smallest fly and the largest whale.  It is not something that requires magical thinking, it is from our true, lived experience.
So yeah, don't conflate pop psychology with skillful methods of a realized presence.  The first wil lead to hardened and intractable notions of a "self" versus the "world," the latter will lead to freedom for self and other - which, when discerned with wisdom, are found to be equality.
When you give, you'll feel better, and your ride will ultimately be much smoother.
At first, this can seem like a call to help oneself.
But really, it is a call to help those around you while recognizing that there is a benefit not just for one, but for two, for all.
We must crawl before we walk, and walk before we fly.
Do not make jest of that which frees beings from bondage suddenly or gradually.

Thank you so much for your answer. It's helped a lot with my understanding and given me a lot of food for thought. If I could tick all three of you I would because all the of you have me a different but ultimately perfectly combined answer.

The Buddha explains the spectrum of "greedy and wholesome wishes" like this:

AN4.95:1.1: “Mendicants, these four people are found in the world.
AN4.95:1.2: What four?

For the foolish heedlessly pursuing gratification of the moment, suffering is inevitable, but the selfish gene blunders on:

AN4.95:1.3: One who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others;

For the noble prairie dog who risks her life to save her offspring there is indeed the benefit of the martyr in a gene's self-expression:

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

For the clever and greedy we have somewhat better:

**AN4.95:1.5: one who practices to benefit themselves, but not others; and

Yet the best evolution is giving up greed, hate and delusion, practicing for the "win-win"

AN4.95:1.6: one who practices to benefit both themselves and others.**

So, yes, we could simply sit back for eons and let Richard Dawkins' selfish gene blunder its way to eventual contentment in a dynamic balance with other selfish genes.
Or we could more expediently investigate the nature of suffering and cut to the chase in this very life by jettisoning the identity view that causes suffering.
And that is indeed the paradox, that careful investigation of the limitation of greed would lead to the end of limits and greed:

SN41.7:6.2: Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of limits.

The skill lies in the investigation, not in the desire for the end of suffering. Without that investigation there is simply endless suffering as desire chases suffering.

A bit of a riddle first... Did the Buddha give the dharma to the world because he was trying to create good karma for himself?
Hmph.
The question as asked is rooted in an egoic understanding of karma: a personal karma in which our actions have consequences, and 'good' consequences produce rewards for the self. Fine as that is for its purposes, it isn't quite right and isn't quite wrong. It is merely one of an assortment of understandings that happen to lie within the grasp of the egoic mind: understandings about something the egoic mind isn't actually capable of grasping.
While I don't normally like to use Buddhist jargon, I want to note here that one of the criteria of 'stream entry' (sotāpatti-magga) is that we break the fetter of self-view, recognizing that there is nothing (no self) contained in the five aggregates that could be considered permanent or eternal. This forces a new view of karma that is depersonalized and de-centered:

Before stream entry, karma is a (metaphysical) reward and punishment for the self, and one tries to choose for merit.
After stream entry, karma is the (metaphysical) flow of the world around and through us, which we now see, and perhaps try to guide into new paths.

After stream entry it stops making sense to think about merits and demerits, because there's no permanent self to earn or enjoy merits. The idea of merits and demerits merely become another form of suffering we see people inflict on themselves in their earnest desire to be free of suffering. Ideally, when a stream enterer gives (or does some other wholesome act) it isn't out of some expectation of reward. They do the wholesome act because it makes the world different from what it would have been. One sees a choice between more suffering and less, and one chooses as best one can.
Dawkins is an intelligent man with a distinct anti-Christian agenda and no clue whatsoever what it means to release the self. It makes for an interestingly conflicted intellectual position: someone who absolutely denies the 'truth' of religion and absolutely affirms the 'truth' of the self, and must coldly face his own extinction in his work. But that's his suffering; you shouldn't take it on without reflection.

Thank you Ted. I wish I could tick all of the answers here because they all helped me equally in slightly different ways to understand. It's given me a lot to think about.

It's all about intention. I help the person who needs help because of compassionate & I want to absolve them of suffering like I would for myself. The good karma is incidental, and the resultant merit I get from it is simply the fruition. If your intention to help is "so that I can attain good karma", then the motivation doesn't come from bodhicitta & a genuine desire to alleviate all from suffering, it comes from greed like you mentioned.
If I give out of loving-kindness, the result doesn't matter, the compassion in and of itself is the reward (my mind won't be clouded by negative emotions, by the 8 winds). If I give so that I can 'get good karma', then the action is tainted by the clinging for a particular outcome (tanha). If action comes from bodhicitta, there can be no tanha.
Basically, you're asking this question because you think all seemingly altruistic actions are inherently 'selfish'; self-serving or gratifies the self. In that case, examine what Buddhism has to say about the word 'self', understand the concept of bodhicitta & the paradox dissolves.

The sutta below (AN 8.33) lists 8 reasons for giving. According to AN 7.52, adorning or ornamenting the mind is the best reason for giving.
It's clear that in the second best case in AN 7.52, reward is explicitly expected and is therefore greed-based (‘When giving this gift my mind becomes clear, and I become happy and joyful.’ - translated by Ven. Sujato).
In the other case, reward is not expected, and giving the gift is simply treated as a requisite (or support or tool) for the mind.
The Pali words here are "citta ālaṅkāra citta parikkhāraṃ". "parikkhāra" is translated as support or requisite, while "ālaṅkāra" is translated as adornment.
Why adornment? Adornment makes something more beautiful. There is a reference to beauty in AN 3.94 (or AN 3.96 according to the numbering of SuttaCentral), which equates beauty of mind to virtue.
So, this means that the highest purpose for giving a gift is to make the mind virtuous. The purpose of virtue is explained in AN 10.1 i.e it is conducive for liberation.
This is not greedy because it is not for the purpose of expecting gain that leads to sensual enjoyment or becoming.

“Bhikkhus, there are these eight grounds for giving. What eight? (1)
One gives a gift from desire. (2) One gives a gift from hatred. (3)
One gives a gift from delusion. (4) One gives a gift from fear. (5)
One gives a gift, thinking: ‘Giving was practiced before by my father
and forefathers; I should not abandon this ancient family custom.’ (6)
One gives a gift, thinking: ‘Having given this gift, with the breakup
of the body, after death, I will be reborn in a good destination, in a
heavenly world.’ (7) One gives a gift, thinking: ‘When I am giving
this gift my mind becomes placid, and elation and joy arise.’ (8) One
gives a gift for the purpose of ornamenting the mind, equipping the
mind. These are the eight grounds for giving.”.
AN 8.33

To approach good housegholders selfish question, so that he might chose a skilfull and wise real selfish (for ones own and all others benefit) one:
Without desire one does not arrive anywhere. Yes, this path, to an end of suffering, requires desire, requires determination, requires effort, requires persistence... for an end of actions, kamma, good householder, and isn't a practice of 'non-action', the way of sectarians. And the Sublime Buddha teaches of what should be done and what not, to archive the noble goal of freedom from all desires.
As from kind of actions, there are four: good, bringing good results, bad, bringing bad experience, mixed, bringing this and that, and the kamma (actions) leading beyond, the kamma of the Noble Eightfold path (the truly alturistic one, one not discoverable , unseen, by common man, having not heard the Sublime Dhamma). It's right that all not reached Arahatship act 'selfish', most for 'no benefical use' some for a Noble aim, a real loberal one.

Like all deeds, it is possible to do it for many reasons, many internal motives.
It is possible to do an action that helps and heals, such as guve to those in need, for a selfish reason. To look good. To "virtue signal" (in the modern phrase). To gain status. To feel good. To win good for oneself in future.
But if one truly feels, truly cares, truly knows suffering and the wheel of life, then one may give because it is ones nature. Because to not give simply was not thought of, in that situation. Because of a deep compassion. Because it is right within this world that some deeds be done, regardless who is the doer.
There is no paradox.  A reductionist approach says all deeds are ultimately selfish, but the heart of a person - and that which matters most in a person - can know which motives called the action forth, or can lie to oneself about it.


text:
The story of Ji Gong 濟公
Chinese often worship Ji Gong and I m quite confuse here. Buddhism practices should be placed at 1st instead of just worshiping or believing in fortune telling. Some may have possession of Ji Gong and provide fortune telling/healing service which I believe is forbidden in Buddhism.
Source of Ji Gong

Unlike traditional Buddhist monks, Daoji did not like following
traditional monastic codes
Not long after that, Buddhism began to recognise Daoji's compassionate
efforts and he is involved in many classic kōans.

Where can I find more information on how Buddhism recognizes/accepts Ji Gong ?  It's giving me the impression Buddhism accepts Ji Gong's teaching? Its giving me impression recognised, drink and teach too in Buddhism ?

I've yet to find any koan or other forms of Buddhist texts explicitly mentioning Ji Gong, so it's difficult to say whether he was 'accepted' by some schools or not. But we can look at other factors.
Are there precedents? Yes. There are many well-known (and greatly revered) bizarre monks in the history of Buddhism. A notable example is Drukpa Kunley, who allegedly used his penis to subdue evil and had had sex with thousands of women. More on par with Ji Gong would be Hanshan (寒山) and Shide (拾得), who are often depicted with distinctive expressions, heads full of hair and wearing ragged clothing. This duo are pretty popular in Zen, and, similar to Ji Gong, are believed to be the incarnations of Manjusri (文殊) and Samantabhadra (普賢), despite behaving like lunatics.

Should monks behave like so? Hard to answer. Monks keep the precepts to cultivate compassion and develop the mind. But one can argue that, since an enlightened being is unattached, unbound and know what they are doing, they need not to follow the precepts as long as their actions help others grow spiritually and reduce their suffering. Although there are differences between the craziness of an enlightened being and that of someone with mental illnesses (see Andrei's answer on crazy wisdom), there are times where the distinction can be blurry.
Note that this line of thinking only applies in one direction. It does not justify doing scummy things and then later claiming that you've done so because you're enlightened.
To sum it up, these monks - Ji Gong included - presumably knew what they were doing. The benefits of the monastic rules are not negated by their acts. If you're a beginner, it's still best to keep all the precepts.

There are already many answers concerning fortune telling:

Is fortune telling allowed in temples?
Do Buddhist believe fortune teller?
Did the Lord Buddha say anything about magic and fortune telling?

AFAIK, those who provide and engage in fortune telling in Buddhist temples in China are not monastics, so the Brahmajala Sutra won't apply to them (a.k.a not wrong livelihood). My take is that if you aren't obsessively into fortune telling, the practice is harmless.

me just visiting temple to temple recently while traveling and trying to understand the culture and Buddhism better :) When something interested found out then will post ques here to clarify the doubts. Perhaps some world Buddhism organization could standardize and clear this up but we dont seem having one yet or perhaps waiting for Maitreya. I do visit Church to Church too. https://www.dailyzen.com/journal/great-doubt

i can guaranteed all these crazy things would be banned by World Buddhism Organization if we have one like Ivermectin usages for Covid 19 cure.

well, I dont think Ji Gong anything to relate to Drukpa Kunley even both regards as mad monk. Ji Gong is a good hearted monk but just commit ethical rules in monestary but not a crime. The other can consider is a rape or a crime. As a summary, why would u learn from a drunk or crime teacher  ? It's just common sense in regards of Buddhism. I just wanna study the culture and doent mean I accept the teaching. But some temple offer Ji Gong consultation service indeed with good deed n harmony teacher so I didnt bother much. U may continue this in the Buddhism chat box ya


text:
How reliable is that the Buddha actually spoke about supernatural powers?
In some sutras from the Pāli Canon the Buddha speaks about supernatural powers (Eg here, psychic powers, telepathy, clearaudience, etc).
Buddhist masters and teachers nowadays don’t talk about these powers and make me think that in fact is not relevant to talk about them. I also have the thought that maybe not even the Buddha have actually spoke about supernatural powers but were added later to make the teachings more interesting.
So my question is how reliable is that the Buddha actually spoke about supernatural powers?

Monks (Bhilkhus) are not allowed to speak about their gained higher attainments (toward non-Bhikkhus), good householder, as well as not showing special skills, by the rules they are given by the Teacher. This may release from the certain reasonings for doubts her.

I think that for a Buddhist, the fact that something is recorded in the Pali canon is usually evidence enough that the Buddha said that -- its being in the canon is some of the only evidence that the Buddha ever said anything.
I mean, the fact that it's in the canon is usually evidence enough to assume it's true -- that is unless there's some other evidence to the contrary.
This answer references and summarises one example of what some "evidence to the contrary" might be:

If something only appears in one sutta
If it's in a sutta but not in the corresponding Agama
If it doesn't seem to "fit" with other things (perhaps even other things in the same sutta)

So far as I know, none of this kind of reason or doubt is applicable to whether he talked about "psychic powers". This definition of iddhi cross-references dozens of suttas, from three of the Nikayas and from the Vinaya.
In summary I don't know any evidence that he didn't speak about it; it seems to me well-documented that he did.

For completeness, two other ways in which people sometimes dispute whether he said something are:

"Yes he said it but he contradicted or clarified that later" -- i.e. related to there being several turnings of the wheel, or the Buddha's using skilful means
But I doubt that this is applicable to whether he talked about psychic powers, I think that psychic powers appear in later canonical texts as well.

"Yes he said something like that but translators misunderstand or mistranslate it"
I think this is quite common, people may argue for example about what "rebirth" is and what the Buddha might really meant when he talked about that -- ditto other concepts like "world" and so on.
And that may be applicable here -- I think it may be up to you, your conscience, your teacher, a specific school of Buddhism, to decide how (and even whether) to interpret something like that -- answers to What are "Supernatural mental abilities" in relation to Buddhism? vary:

There is a belief among some practitioners of certain sects...

In my opinion, supernatural abilities are metaphors for various mental/psychological skills.

Of course they are real and not metaphors or vain myths.

My personal (perhaps inaccurate) summary or take-away of what he said about them is that they are not important; not required in order to be enlightened; not a proof of enlightenment; and something which monks are forbidden to show off to laypeople; that the Buddha himself had those powers and used them wisely (e.g. knowing other people's state of mind so that he'd know how and when to teach them); but perhaps not relevant, maybe a distraction or conceit or a cause of doubt, to other people, and perhaps best put aside (along with many other kinds of question which aren't helpful to the goal).

I figure it has to do with 2 things:
one is that there are only very few people in the world who possess/ed those abilities and people who are on their way to develop psychic powers are vulnerable for attacks during this process which will inevitably disrupt it; which is not recommended.
another reason is that the overall skepticism when it comes to it. most people doubt it exists and it might be easier to be quiet about it to protect oneself literally and spiritually. it is an unbelievable delicate matter and shouldn't be shared unwisely.