text:
Does there exist a historical-critical study ("Higher Criticism") of Buddhists’ texts?
I am in search for some academic work on critical methods to analyze Buddhists’ texts.
There exist numerous jātakas and avadānas. Many representations in Buddhist art visualize these legends. E.g. Maya’s dream about the white elephant with his six tusks, or several reliefs at the gateways of Sanchi.
I assume that most of these stories are fiction. Therefore my question:
•   Do these texts or figural representations raise any truth claim?
•   If yes: Which claim? How can one validate the truth claim?
•   Which groups and which interests triggered the texts and their
dissemination?
Is there someone to recommend some academic papers from Buddhist or secular authors about the historical-critical study of the content of Buddhist texts? Or point to some journals devoted to the subject?
Note. My question relates to
Is this forum a place for Buddhist Hermeneutics?

There are scholarly evidences but the main evidence is derived by studying Tipitaka. If one realized that the fundamentals described in Tipitaka are true, then he will reasonably trust the stories comes in Tipitaka for the most part.

@Blake I learned from the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts", quoted by ruben 2020 in his/her answer, how results about "early Buddhist texts (EBT)" can been obtained and what has been obtained. Pointing just to Tipitaka does not answer my question. But I agree: The nikayas and the vinaya are the main source. Thanks for your answer.

The book entitled "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" by Venerables Sujato and Brahmali is the best starting place for an overview of academic studies on the Pali Sutta Pitaka. There are many other research papers and books referenced in this book.
Academic writings of Ven. Dr. Analayo like "Oral Dimensions of Pāli Discourses: Pericopes, other Mnemonic Techniques and the Oral Performance Context" and "The Dawn of Abhidharma", would also be very useful. He has also done comparative studies of suttas in Pali against their Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan counterparts e.g. in "A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikāya".
Other useful books and writings include "The Composition and Transmission of Early Buddhist Texts with Specific Reference to Sutras" by Mark Allon, "The Historical Authenticity of Early Buddhist Literature: A Critical Evaluation" and "The Oral Transmission of Early Buddhist Literature" by Alexander Wynne.

I think the OP was especially interested in "jātakas and avadānas" -- and whether these "raise truth claims". Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote that the Jataka Stories as often fantastical and that  it's "more common for Theravada Buddhists to accept the stories far more at face value than they really should".

+1 for pointing out to the book of Sujato and Brahmali.

There are studies but they are conjecture for the most part. The conclutions derived are based on historicist philology that can hardly be applied with confidence. No one will accept this method (for example) in a Criminal Investigation.

• Which groups and which interests triggered the texts and their dissemination?

The Buddha mentioned "Jataka" as part of the Navanga-satthu-sasana (ninefold dispensation of the teacher) in Suttas.

I assume that most of these stories are fiction. Therefore my question:
• Do these texts or figural representations raise any truth claim?

The Theravadins have slightly different stories. Many of Jatakas and Apadanas have been sensibly dated back to the Buddhas time by many scholars.

• If yes: Which claim? How can one validate the truth claim?

Robert E. Buswell (2004). Encyclopedia of Buddhism:
"Jātaka tales may be quite ancient. The term appears as part of a schema of Buddhist literary forms called the nine component genres of the Buddha's teaching (navaṅga-buddhasāsana), and depictions of them appear in early Indian art (as early as the second century BCE)."
Straube, Martin. Narratives: South Asia in Silk,"Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism":
"While these texts cannot be dated in a precise manner, "the fact that many narratives are passed on in almost identical form within the canons of the different schools shows that they date back to the time before the schisms between the schools took place."
There are scholarly evidences, but the main evidence is derived by studying Tipitaka. If one realized that the fundamentals described in Tipitaka are true, then he will reasonably trust the stories comes in Tipitaka for the most part.

The jātakas and avadānas are obviously untrue because the word 'jati' & 'nivasa' found in the suttas do not mean 'physical birth' or 'past lives'. 'Jati' is defined in SN 12.2 as the birth of a class of beings and the word 'beings' is defined in SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 as a 'view'. Therefore, 'jati' refers to 'mental/conceptual birth' rather than 'physical birth'; as clearly expressed in MN 86, where the Buddha said to Aṅgulimāla his becoming a monk was 'birth into the noble birth' . Similarly, the word 'nivasa' means 'home', 'abode' or 'dwelling' and SN 22.79 makes it literally clear that recollection of 'past abodes' (generally mistranslated as 'past lives') is recollecting in the past when the mind ignorantly regarded one or more of the five aggregates to be 'self'.
Its important to recognise, due to its own internal perversions & external social mischief, Buddhism became extinct in India. Since the Jains continued to exist after the Muslim conquests, obviously the Hindu (political vassals) & Muslim (rulers) decided to end Buddhism because Buddhism kept appropriating Hindu doctrines & deities for mischievous worldly purposes. The Buddhist laypeople of Western & Eastern India were converted to Islam; but Hinduism & Jainism remained.
The evolution of the Buddhist texts & sects is clear. The  jātakas and avadānas (such as the Buddhavaṁsa, Therāpadāna & Therīapadāna) redefined the meaning of "jati" and resulted in the addition of perverted suttas into the Sutta Pitaka; such as Iti 22, SN 22.96, AN 3.15, AN 9.20, MN 81, MN 83, MN 50, DN 19 & MN 123. Most of these suttas about literal past lives contain the term “ahaṃ tena samayena”, which is found at least 22 times in the Buddhavaṃsa, twice in the Therāpadāna and once is the Therīapadāna.
The supernatural MN 123 shares the term mātukucchismiṁ with other obvious late texts such as DN 15, DN 28 & DN 33. This notion of mātukucchismiṁ & the Theravada idol DN 15 appear not found/discussed in later early commentaries, such as the Paṭisambhidāmagga or Abhidhamma Vibangha; which support the view these are late & non-essential suttas.
I could recommend my own critical studies of Buddhist texts called Is “rebirth” a misconception of the Pali suttas? and Dependent Origination from the Pali Suttas but this used to be against the rules of this forum therefore I will not recommend these critical studies.
For very superficial theories ('studies'), you can try the authors  named Brahmali, Sujato & Analayo, such as: The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts

Unfortunatelyl I am not a member of scribd. Would it be possible for you to email the two papers to me: "joachim.wehler at gmx.net". Thank you.

no problem. regards DD

FYI people are allowed to reference their own studies/texts which are published elsewhere -- see the Help topic How to not be a spammer -- 1) you must disclose your affiliation (i.e. say that you're the author, generally writing "my" is enough); 2) Not too much/often 3) An answer should be more than only a link (e.g. answer the question or summarise or quote from the reference here on this site, and add a link for reference or further details).

Great answer. I find the 'actual rebirthing' schools to be at odds with what I later came to understand. In the ancient frame of reference, the notion of rebirth was presented as a way to reference past and future. In modern day terms, we call this 'time.' - which doesn't exist. So simple!


text:
Inferiority and being judged by other
I have been all my life judged by people, especially women including my sister and mom. I have also been rejected badly by some women or at least I made wrong judgements to feel that way.
My question is how can I overcome this. It is causing feelings of inferiority, worthlessness and low confidence. Is there any particular meditation practice available in Buddhism or any particular practical teaching that I can implement to be free of this karma and advance on the path?
Thanks, let me know if any more info is needed.

Follow the Buddha's teaching. Human beings are all unaware unless they are saints. It's highly improbable that your sister and your mother are saints.

In Buddhism, only the judgments that are in accordance with Dhamma are accepted, regardless of the person who judge. (whether it is you or others). So go forth in the Triple Gem and read the Viduddhimagga to know about the Path.

I found this answer help (by Ven Yuttadhammo).
It's not in answer to a question about meditation -- you can read the question -- but here's how I read the answer.
First it distinguishes "conceit" from "view".

A conceit is feeling or experience which arises
It may or may not be valid
One may not (need not) "hold" it as a "view" or "belief" -- instead one might "mentally discard it as being based on delusion rather than accepting it as valid"
As a "defilement" it is a "remnant of past belief in self"

I also find Wikipedia's summary of conceit useful:

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

The canon identifies it as a source of inter-personal argument -- perhaps "my understanding of Dhamma or Vinaya is better than yours", for example -- to be avoided.
See:

Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2)
Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (Ud 6.4)

I found that "you are blame-worthy" is a (unfortunate) dynamic in some family relationships.
I also like the second part of Ven. Yuttadhammo's answer:

Comparisons are a form of conceit -- and here your question was about "inferiority"
"a Sotapanna can only give rise to true conceit"

I guess that in terms of "being judged" -- whether that's "by others" or perhaps by the "arising of a conceited thought" -- you may (especially if you're able to see clearly) consider whether that judgement or comparison is "valid".

If it's invalid then perhaps discard
If it's valid then perhaps, learn from it and behave accordingly?

There's another aspect to the Dhamma, about "spiritual friendship", which holds that it's by comparing yourself to -- emulating, living with -- someone "better" that you may progress; see for example:

Bhikkhuni Sutta: The Nun (AN 4.159)

This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.

Upaddha Sutta: Half (SN 45.2)

Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life.

One more thing -- my wife and mother were both professional pre-school teachers -- and I think that the conventional wisdom, the teacher-training or philosophy which they were taught and acted on, is to avoid blaming people (children) and making out people to be inferior. My mum's senior teacher gave her some version of this text as an embroidery, she had it on the wall by her desk when I was a child:

CHILDREN LEARN WHAT THEY LIVE
--Dorothy Law Nolte
If a child lives with criticism, he learns to condemn.
If a child lives with hostility, he learns to fight.
If a child lives with ridicule, he learns to be shy.
If a child lives with shame, he learns to feel guilty.
If a child lives with tolerance, he learns to be patient.
If a child lives with encouragement, he learns
confidence.
If a child lives with praise, he learns to appreciate.
If a child lives with fairness, he learns justice.
If a child lives with security, he learns to have faith.
If a child lives with approval, he learns to like himself.
If a child lives with acceptance and friendship, he
learns to find love in the world.

I think the rule for teachers is to distinguish or to teach good and bad behaviour -- praising good behaviour, and teaching better behaviour -- not the same as trying to teach a child that the child is a bad person.
I think there may be parallels with "identity view" in Buddhism -- i.e. you learn "this is good or bad behaviour" without necessarily taking that as an identity-view or a belief about "self".
It also helps to distinguish the behaviour from the person -- it's not that "he's bad" because "he behaves badly" -- behaviour changes and can be directed.

Conceit is a fetter cut only by Arahants.

That was why I posted that question i.e. to understand the distinction.

Your answer says you have/had a wife & mother. I think the OP question is about expectations of women towards men rather than related to supramundane matters of conceit. Surely your mother & wife had intentions towards you so you were a well-behaved submissive obedient son & husband? Were you well trained in wishy-washy flexible feminist political correctness?

"I think the question is about expectations of women towards men rather than related to supramundane matters of conceit" I didn't think so. "Inferiority" (per the title) is implicitly "a comparison", that and its asking about "feelings" of inferiority (and how not to hold onto those) reminded me of Ven Yuttadhammo's explanation.

Sure. All dukkha is attachment & conceit. But, imo, there is underlying nestbuilding dynamic in the OP question. –

Well we are asked to Take care when "reading into" a question -- guessing at the OP's "dynamic" (based e.g. on your own experience) might be wrong. But it's also suggested that we answer based on personal experience (as well as based on references), so, in this answer I tried to explain "experience" without presuming I would accurately judge the person asking the question. And their comment to you, i.e. "we are here to be liberated", suggests maybe they are more interest in the supramundane than in nestbuilding.

But your answer also included non-Buddhist personal experience about your mother & wife. At least my answers & comments stick to Buddhism.

Did I tell you about when I visited my lesbian cousin last year? My lesbian cousin & her partner said to me they were considering having a child however I (DD) was the only man they would consider being the sperm donor. I was totally horrified; despite the compliment. But my mother scolded me, replying at least I would have done something useful in my life for once by being a sperm donor. My mother was all on board with the other four women in the room. I was the sole male (mindfully) enduring this kamma of others.

Their comment to me, i.e. "we are here to be liberated", demonstrates the skill & wisdom of my answer, which promoted this Lion's Roar from the OP.

You didn't tell me that, no; though I previously gathered that your relationship with your mother is strained, and I may remember something you wrote about a sister, and another about another woman who you encountered. Maybe I see how you use that kind of experience to inform your answers. I still think it's useful though to disctinguish whatever the behaviour is from the person, and perhaps especially in children.

Your perception is obviously wrong & something solely from ChrisW papanca citta. My relationship with my mother has never been strained; although it may have been for her at times when i left the country. Personally, i never take the worldling puthujjana in the family seriously.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

No. The chat is over. The conjecture is non-Buddhist. Its the stuff of womens gossip magazines.

In Buddhism, there is the practice of 'metta', often translated as 'loving-kindness' but simply meaning 'good-will' or 'respectful friendliness'.
Metta is practiced towards both oneself & others. The suttas say:

157 If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. 165. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. 166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.
Dhammapada

Searching all directions with your awareness, you find no one dearer
than yourself. In the same way, others are thickly dear to
themselves. So you shouldn't hurt others  if you love yourself.
Ud 5.1

And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects
others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four
establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting
oneself one protects others.
And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects
oneself? By patience [forbearance; tolerance], harmlessness, lovingkindness and sympathy. It
is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
SN 47.19

To have feelings of inferiority, worthlessness and low confidence seems to indicate insufficient metta development towards oneself. A Buddhist practice of metta is chanting or repeatedly thinking the following:

May I abide in well-being,
In freedom from affliction,
In freedom from hostility,
In freedom from ill-will,
In freedom from anxiety,
May I maintain well-being in myself.
Page 41

Thanks for the answer, the last part really helps. I also felt this myself recently when I meditated on my subjective view of myself, I realized I am angry at myself on a subtle level. Then I gave myself love, and I felt a lot different afterwards. I am just putting here in case future readers find this helpful.

You are welcome. Our goal is for our own well-being.

Generally, women close to us, such as our mother, want what they personally believe is best for us, according to their own views of what is best in life. While we may disagree with them, we should try to appreciate their intentions. Always remember our mother looked after us & sacrificed for us; even though her giving birth to us was her personal choice & desire.
Did I tell you about when I visited my lesbian cousin last year? My lesbian cousin & her partner said they previously were considering having a child however I (Dhamma Dhatu) was the only man they would consider being the sperm donor. I was totally horrified; despite the compliment. But my mother scolded me, replying at least I would have done something useful in my life for once by being a sperm donor. My mother was all on board in agreement with the other four women in the room. I was the sole male (mindfully, with clear-comprehension) enduring this kamma of others.
My lesbian cousin really loves me. We took lovely photos together. We hung out a lot when we were young plus we look so much alike. I suppose, for her, her intentions were a type of 'love'. Fortunately, as men, we are physically created stronger & faster to escape such intentions.

The Pali suttas say:

The power of women is anger - AN 8.27

Women have as their ultimate goal authority/domination - AN 6.52

A husband should serve his wife - DN 31

We should be careful with Western Marxist Woke ideas about female equality & Patriarchy or pornographic ideas about female submission. The Buddha taught it is the nature of women to domineer men. That is the way things are. If you wish to improve how women view & treat you then you should develop qualities that please women, such as working for them, serving them, complimenting their appearance, buying them regular gifts, etc. The Buddha taught:

A husband should serve his wife as the western quarter in five ways:
by treating her with honor, by not looking down on her, by not being
unfaithful, by relinquishing authority to her and by presenting her
with adornments. DN 31

"Western Marxist woke ideas" is a nonsense phrase that has nothing to do with either the question or Buddhism in general. Additionally the asker didn't mention if they were interested in the Theravada or Mahayana take; the Mahaprajnaparamitasastra breaks down the idea of gender entirely; some early Mahayana texts like Srimalidevi and Sumati's Questions make it clear that there's no spiritual difference between female and male practitioners; in EBT, Visakha, Mallika, and Ambipali, for example, were treated as socially more or less equal in status.

" If you wish to improve how women view & treat you then you should develop qualities that please women, such as working for them, serving them, complimenting their appearance, buying them regular gifts, etc. " Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose..we are here to be liberated so wouldn't placing our happiness on a conditioned thing like women's view of us - wouldn't that be binding and be impermanent?

@Kobamschitzo this sutta is advice to a layman on proper conduct for in the current lifetime, and also includes instructions on how to build a good relationship with your serfs — clearly not a section applicable to modern life.

@Kobamschitzo. Yes. My answer is excellent for developing dispassion & disenchantment. In Buddhism there there are only two options towards women: (i) serving them; and (ii) giving them up. There is no third option of having women submit to male desires. This is unwholesome.

Zac. The dhamma in the suttas has no historical context. The dhamma is natural law, always applicable. Please kindly write your own answers and try to not taint my answers with non-Buddhist comments. What you call "modern life" is often non-dhamma and saturated with defilements of greed, lust, hatred & delusion. Thank you

I see that SN 37.30 says that women have up to five "powers" in fact -- of which, it says, "ethical behaviour" is the one of import to "the family".

Yes. Part of this ethical power is keeping a husband under control or under her thumb. Did you miss the suttas  SN 37.26 & SN 37.27? Its interesting how you chose the sutta about expelling a wife. You may have possibly mistaken this for Marxist Patriarchy but I guess it is the whole family that expels the unethical wife, including the women.

@DhammaDhatu Specific discourses (and commentaries, subcommentaries, rules, etc.) certainly do have context. Teachings about dealing with serfs or instructions to hereditary monarchs, for example, aren't particularly relevant today. Some instructions have both historical and geographical context, which is why bhikkhus in the west frequently stay in viharas year-round even though that flatly contradicts some early texts, or why those in some countries wear long sleeved shirts. I didn't need to answer separately because both Lowbrow's and Chris's answers are good.

Zac. Your comments about serfs (servants) are irrelevant because the suttas teachings are not about justifying having servants. The suttas teachings only explain how servants are to be treated. It follows, the sutta teachings give the same instructions on how to treat indentured servants and how to treat paid employees. Similarly, the sutta teachings are about how men & women should best relate to each other, according to the laws of nature. The suttas say girls/women are to be protected by their families until married into a good home. There is no sex before marriage for real Buddhists.

@DhammaDhatu I'm going to disengage from this discussion because I don't think it's productive. I disagree with your view and see it as somewhat fundamentalist, but you're of course welcome to have your own view. Maybe it'll turn out that my view is actually incorrect, I don't know.

Yes. please disengage from what is harmful to yourself & harmful to Buddhism. I am posting the view of Buddhism rather than my personal view. It is you that is posting personal views. The Buddha was a fundamentalist. The Buddha stuck strictly to his teachings and admonished those who misrepresented his teachings. The Buddha also admonished those who engage in slander against others. Take care.

"Its interesting how you chose the sutta about expelling a wife." I didn't choose it for that, it's that that's the sutta which implies that, of the five, the important one is sila.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
My body is constantly buzzing
I started meditating 2 weeks ago and I feel like I have been meditating forever. The things that I am doing during meditation are mind blowing. Now I feel electric in body constantly , waves upon waves of buzzing and vibrating. My teeth actually hurt. It’s almost like a ball of energy usually in my head constantly vibrating. I can move it anywhere in my body and hold it there for a short period and then it goes back to my head/ brain. I don’t know if this feeling is normal it’s actually exhilarating. I’m not complaining I just don’t understand what is going on. I am not a spiritual person but wow this is crazy. I a 49 year old rational completely normal person but what I’m feeling is unexplainable. I guess my question is, is this feeling normal or explainable? It can’t be normal or everyone would meditate all the time. Feels like magnets constantly pulling and pushing me.

Physical and mental side effects of intense concentration are not uncommon. Don't get addicted to them. They're not the point of meditation, they're just one effect. I recommend finding a teacher in your preferred tradition (or if you don't have one, just finding any local Buddhist group that seems to have a good reputation).

See also this question (I just found out about the Greatest Hits view, which is very useful!)

Most of the other answers are canonical Pali.  If I might offer a take from the Zen perspective...
All of this is completely normal.  It's a good first sign and an indication that you are proceeding in the right direction.  The body is naturally energetic.  Ki flows through us whether or not we believe it exists.  We don't create this current or "turn it on".  Instead, you could say that we discover it once we move some of our grosser defilements off to the side.  Ki was always there, it was just hidden by our mental habits or simply by our lack of awareness.  Meditation, as you've found out, is one way of revealing this fountain of energy.  In this preliminary stage, other practices like tai chi, yoga, etc. can be just as effective.
So you've discovered this energy.  Great.  Now your meditation practice can actually begin.  You've described these feelings of energy moving through your body or coming in waves.  Such fluctuations indicate a few things.  The one I want to deal with here has to do with wavering attention.  When you begin to feel this current of energy arise, rather than looking at it or getting excited by it, passively sit in it like you would sit in a warm bath.  After a few minutes (or a few seconds depending on your temperament) you are going to be tempted to move your physical body.  Don't.  Any movement is going to essentially reset your energy meter back down to zero.  The longer you can sit without moving, the more opportunity that energy will have to grow.  Practice just that for a couple of weeks.  An hour or so of DAILY sitting will suffice for now.  As you do this, any number of things may begin to happen.  You might start shaking involuntary.  You might want to scream.  You might feel like someone is twisting you into knots.  Whatever happens, just stay with it.  And be fair to yourself.  This part of the process can be overwhelming.  If you really can't take it anymore, get up and walk around for a minute or two before resuming your practice.
Once you've succeeded in keeping your body still for an hour or more, you may begin to notice that your mind is still slipping around the inside of your head like a slick bar of soap.  Sometimes it's on the breath, sometimes it's involved in a fantasy, sometimes it's in your left arm, and sometimes it vanishes altogether.  While your body may remain still and while your energy may continue to arise, you can clearly observe your mind cantering down any number of mental threads.  Now is the time to begin collecting all of these mental strands and gathering them together in one place (incidentally, that's the literal definition of the word samadhi).  In other words, where before we worked on keeping the body stable, now we are going to work on doing the same thing with the mind.
There are a number of ways of doing this.  The Pali canon suggests the breath or a kasina.  Tibetan folk might employ a deity visualization, etc.  In Zen, we just pick a spot on the wall and stare at it or apply our attention to a spot just beyond the tip of the nose.  Any of these will work.  What's important is how you maintain this attention.  It's extremely important that you don't apply too much volitional energy.  Instead, be as light a humanly possible without dropping that object of attention.  Applied and sustained stability, not force, is the name of the game.  Think of the minimal amount of energy you'd need to hold a feather up against the wall with your index finger.  You don't have to press until your finger nail turns white.  So as long as the slightest contact is maintained and your finger remains stable on just that one spot, that feather ain't going anywhere.  Be light.  Be consistent.  Above all, be stable.
If you are able to sit with a more or less stable mind for 1 1/2 to 2 hours, get back to us and we can talk about opening up your energy channels are really getting that energy to flow.  See you in a couple of years! ;-)
Enjoy!

Just to clarify for future readers, some of your answer is Sōtō-specific, is that correct?

Our sangha is actually Obaku zen - which is just a fancy name for Rinzai.  That said, what I described is basically just shinkantaza practice.  I don’t think there’s anything in there that a Soto person would take issue with.  Seemed like a good approach for OP since he seemed to be clinging a bit.  Nothing like shinkantaza to cure you of that!

Thank you for the clarification!

It's perfectly normal to feel forces and currents of energy moving through the body.
If it feels good, even ecstatic, then it means your energy channels are fairly open, since you also mention being able to direct the energy around specific parts of the body.
If your channels were not open, or not open well or even completely blocked as the case with most people, then the forces would be uneven, you might experience pain, pressure, discomfort in various body parts instead of pleasure.
Try to relax more thoroughly, eventually your teeth and any other body parts won't feel tense. Don't get attached to pleasure, that will smooth out and gradually disappear the longer you meditate correctly.
If you're feeling strong pleasure in the body as you describe, you're most likely on the jhāna continuum. To make sure it's jhāna, you have to get the mental part of the program correct. More detail in my analysis here:

passaddhi-sam-bojjh-aṅgassa

Excellent answer!

WARNING: YOU HAVE NOT EXPEREINCED JHANA OR ANYTHING RELATED TO JHANA. Jhana is attained by making "letting go/surrender" ("vossagga") the meditation object (SN 48.10). If you attain jhana, the body & mind sit for many hours, in serene silent bliss. To the contrary, when there is the delusion of attaining jhana, the mind goes crazy posting about fake-jhana & hating on certain monks on every chatsite on the internet. Real jhana is a "Brahma-realm", where the mind is also saturated with loving-kindness born from being saturated with inner well-being.
Based on the narrative in the question, I can only guess you are practising what is called "Wrong Concentration". That is, you are concentrating with much too much effort & too much willpower, which causes the mind to suppress & recirculate the already stored stressful mental energy in the nervous system of the physical body.
This wrong concentration that suppresses the stored stress plus  the delusion of meditative success can also cause the meditator to get excited; therefore a type of impure 'rapture' is generated, which gets mixed with the suppressed stress, causing the various side effects described in the narrative in the question.
Lol - the question narrative reminds me of my first few days of attempted meditation.
In Buddhism, what is called "Right Concentration" is founded in letting go. Rather then pressing down the mind (in wrong concentration), Right Concentration is silently quietly opening up the mind, which allows the already stored stress energy in the nervous system to rise up & dissolve. Any 'rapture' that is generated will be more pure & stable.
In summary, you are using a wrong technique or have misinterpreted some instructions.
The monk below gives a demonstration of wrong concentration versus Right Concentration:

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


text:
Why do I struggle to meditate daily or regularly?
I have been meditating for more than 10 years now. My aim is to meditate daily, but somehow I always get lost in activities that feel more important or urgent at the time. Then, suddenly I realize that I have lost track of my intention to meditate daily. I then start again, and everything is fine for a week or so, and then the same pattern repeats. I've read that one meaning of the word sati is to remember. So this experience is like waking up during a single meditation session and realizing I'm not focused on the breath. I feel like the ability to get to a consistent daily practice is the next small step forward for me. I think this inability stems from the hindrance called doubt.
How to I get out of this cycle? Any advice is welcome.

I don't have a scriptural source offhand so this is a comment instead of an answer, but one thing that helps me when I'm slacking is to replace some other activity with a Buddhist-related activity. This gets me back in the right headspace, longer-term. An example might be, instead of watching funny videos of cats on YouTube, I watch a lecture series on the Platform Sutra, or instead of reading the news over lunch, I read a chapter of a commentary. Setting an alarm and even having a daily calendar event on your phone may also help.

Read the Nivarana sutta with Commentary

Thanks Zac - I've noticed that when I go back to daily reading of Buddhist material, I'm more likely to meditate regularly.

Make meditation pleasant. Things you enjoy you're more likely to do.
When you go to meditate, think about how you're taking a break from the stressful and chaotic world and you're going to do something good for yourself.
Find a style of meditation that you enjoy. If meditation feels like a chore, then it is a chore and you won't do it as much.
Sit comfortably. It's okay to meditate on a chair. I wouldn't recommend lay down on a couch or a bed because you're more likely to fall asleep.
Experiment with the duration. Sit as long as is comfortable, then get up. Don't sit through pain. You can do multiple short meditations if you like.
Having an altar or a place for meditation that is visible will remind you to meditate.

In Buddhism, there is a notion of renunciation. It means not to be attached and wanting to be free from samsara. It means to let go. That should be the motivation of meditation.
If the motivation of meditating is not renunciation, then it is very difficult to meditate. For example, if the motivation is to have peace (many fall into this trap), then when we start thinking of something else more peaceful, we lost the present meditation and starts wondering. (The remedy then is to renounce the wondering mind and comeback to the present meditation and continue with present meditation)

Generally this happens due to five hindrances.
If you think the problem stems from Doubt (Vicikiccha), then there are remedies mentioned extensively in the Commentary.
You can read the following texts in order to strengthen your faith and ovecome the doubts.

Nivarana sutta with Commentary

Commentary to Indriya vibhanga of Abhidhamma (about Saddha-indriya)

I will find this and read it. Will feedback once done. Thank you and much metta to you!!


text:
Saṃsāra vs Saṃskāra
Saṃsāra (cycle of birth and death) and Saṃskāra (mental formations) seem to be semantically close to one another in the sense that Saṃskāra in the form of unwholesome seeds and habit energies would feed into the endless cycle of Saṃsāra and keep it going.
Given the uncanny phonetic similarity between these two terms, I was just wondering if they are indeed etymologically related and how this conception of present inclinations being dictated by past experiences fit into Buddhist philosophy as a whole.

As other people said, sam- stands for "togetherness", "sara" stands for "flowing" and "kara" stands for "making".
So the two words are, roughly, "together-flowing" and "together-making".
For me, "Together-flowing" invokes an image of stream infinitely rushing on and yet staying in the same place, like a river. This is a metaphor for the "stream" of the infinitely chaining/forking/joining causes-and-effects that make up the lives of countless generations of sentient beings.
"Together-making" invokes an image of something assembled from multiple parts where these parts condition each other into staying together. That's an abstract term referring to the semi-stable bundles of causes/conditions that come together to produce and sustain (or become and be) every single phenomenon (except Nirvana which is not really an individual phenomenon but I must say it's not a bundle).
In the absolute sense the causal bundles are not good or bad, they just are, but practically speaking some causal bundles are manifestations of bad karma that create experience of suffering or worse, help sustain karmically negative "vicious circles".
So to answer your first question, the two words are not etymologically related except through their common prefix pointing out that both concepts have an element of "togetherness" or co-conditioning.
As to your deeper question, you are correct in your assumption that Samsara is sustained by the effects of the past feeding forward to be the causes of the new, ad infinitum. In my understanding, the samskaras are always cyclic as well, at least to some degree - otherwise they would instantly disband right after coming together.
This principle of causation having a tendency to be self-sustaining is an important part of the Buddhist philosophy both at the everyday level (bad deeds are bad karma, violence begets violence etc) and the level of spiritual practice in pursuit of Enlightenment, since the very Noble Path is a virtuous cycle or spiral.

Nice answer! It is interesting to observe how different Buddhist traditions work with this self-sustaining relationship between karmic energies in the form of Sankhara and the resultant vicious cycle of Samsara sentient beings get caught in. The Zen tradition, for example, tends to shift the whole paradigm altogether, to the extent of declaring the Kleshas (defilements) as equivalent to Bodhi （煩惱即菩提）. How this works out exactly is up for debate.

This Glossary transliterates it as

saṃsāra and saṅkhāra

The PTS dictionary has it as:

saŋsāra and sankhāra

Note:

The PTS dictionary defines the saŋ prefix as meaning something like, "one", "same", primarily "together", also "accentuated".
That's about the same as the meaning the Glossary gives for the saṃ prefix
So I think they're the same -- the difference is only in how they're transliterated (into a more-or-less Latin alphabet).

As for the roots:

The PTS dictionary gives the root saarati which means to "flow", "move", "run along".
Conversely the Glossary says that the root of saṅkhāra is karoti meaning "make, do, cause, cause to become, perform act".

So I think they have the same (very common) "prefix", and different "roots".

With all due consideration,
The Pali sam-, san- preffix is the equivalent of the English com-, con-.
Since samsara is the opposite of nibbana, which is the unconditioned, the most accurate term for qualifying both samsara and sankhara would be conditioned or conditional, pertaining to conditions. Also, many suttas explain that conditional existence samsara is the sum of all conditioned phenomena sabbe sankhara.
The conclusions that arise are graphically sketched as follows.
Respectfully

The term 'saṅkhāra' does not necessary infer unwholesomeness. The term 'saṅkhāra' is used in many ways, such as in 'kayasaṅkhāra', meaning 'in & out breathing' ('body-condition'; 'body-conditioner'; MN 44) and 'ayusankhara' ('life-condition'; 'life-conditioner'; 'life-force'; MN 43). SN 54.11 for example describes the Buddha calming the kayasankhara & cittasankhara. Or SN 22.85 makes it clear an Arahant has five aggregates, including saṅkhāra aggregate. 'Unwholesome seeds' and 'habitual energies' are called 'anusaya' and 'asava' in Pali rather than 'sankhara'.
The term 'saṁsāra' is always unwholesome, referring to the mind 'continually moving about' due to ignorance & craving continuously grasping the five aggregates as 'self'. Refer to SN 22.99.
The dictionary says about these two words:

saṅkhāra = saṁ + kṛ (kāra
adjective & noun; doing, making; a maker, a worker; from kār-, Vedic kāra... derived from kṛ)
saṁsāra = from saṁsarati = saṁ + sar + a = saṁ + sarati (sarati
to go, flow, run, move along)

In summary, both words sharing the same prefix (saṁ) does not mean they have an inherent etymologically relationship. For example, the exclusively wholesome terms 'sambojjhaṅga' ('factors of enlightenment') and 'sampajañña' ('situational understanding') probably share the same prefix (saṁ) as 'saṅkhāra' and 'saṁsāra'.
The prefix 'saṁ' generally means 'together with'. I guess:

Saṅkhāra means 'together/joint (saṅ) construction (karoti)'.
Sampajañña means 'together/associated (situational) wisdom'.
Sambojjhaṅga means 'constituent of/accompaniments/companions of enlightenment'.
Saṁsāra means (?? I am not sure ??) maybe 'roaming together with ignorance & craving' (???).

Terms often have an etymologically relationship when they share the same root, possibly such as 'saṅkhāra' & 'kamma' sharing the root 'kar' or 'karoti' (although I am not 100% sure about this example).
However, sharing a root also does not necessarily imply sharing meaning. For example, the Pali terms 'upapanna' and 'paṭipanna' share the same root ('pad') but the respective prefix gives these two terms a different meaning. 'Upapanna' means 'travel in a similar direction' where as 'paṭipanna' means 'travel in an opposite direction'.
There are multi-linguists on this forum with far better language knowledge than I.

"roaming together with ignorance & craving" Interesting guess. I assumed it meant "a universe of wandering" i.e. through all the various realms (all together as in never permanently any one).

Or perhaps (e.g. from Hinduism) it's "together" to imply that "all beings" (together), "all lives" and so on.

thank you Chris. I personally do not know. possibly some others can input

Actually its san+sāra and san+kāra.
I think prefix san means natural.or unconscious. and we know that the root of nature is three defilement i.e rāga,dosa and moha.
The action i.e kāra which are triggered by san is called sanskāra. i.e a natural action.
and due to momentum of sankhāra you continue the cycle of rebirth or bhavcakra or paticcasamuppada.
Sansāra is another name of cycle of rebirth. because defilements or nature is the essence(sāra) of cycle of rebirth.
In Pali the word 'Nissāra' means escape from Sansāra. but ideally it  should means essence-less-ness.
In Sanskrit and in many indian language, we still use these two words in modern time too. Though with different meaning.i.e sansāra as the world and sanskāra as behaviour inherited from parents and teachers.

I got to think about san by reading this link.
according to him san means defilement. tesan means three
defilement i.e rāga,dosa and moha.
However I think he is cought up by defining every word starting with
san or sam rooted in 3 defilements.
But by closely studding all words in that website, I found the word
'nature' suits more to san. though indirectly it means three core
defilements only. but not for all words.. the meaning 'nature' or
prakriti suits to all word  though.

Any reference for "san means defilement"?

This guy explain it well. but its upto you to agree.  https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-concepts/san-dasa-akusala/?highlight=tesan

But he goes too much into it and says all word start with san or sam are rooted in san. I agree many word are rooted in san but not all,. some are really rooted in sam like samma.

Thanks for the reference. The author reinterprets a lot of words, e.g. "sara" to mean "fruitful" or "good" (rather than "flowing"); and the meanings of "anicca" and "anatta" and so on.

I like your answer, samsara might mean “without essence”

Yes with wisdom you know that sansāra is actually asāra(no real essense) so plan for nissāra(escape).

but again, the early sense of the word samsara is the journey beyond, journey into the formless (essence). and this is why maybe the idea that samsara is nirvana rings true

although i don't think that's really the reason nagarjuna or whoever reminds us the sameness (nirvana + samsara)...in any case, someone then discovers, entering formless is temporary, thus the endless cycle theory persists

in india the teaching of nagarjuna lost. but the words are still left. and we still relates samsara to world and not transmigration. and spiritual people say that sansāra is asāra. theory of nagarjuna is very high level,( I am in capable to decode) but with my limited knowledge I can say that he is trying to establish sunyata by equating sansara with nibbana.  but that does not means arahant comes back. we have to accept that arhant had cut PS i.e escapped sansāra.

in short sansāra is equivalent to nibbana but is not nibbana. arhant is one who cut PS i.e escaped sansāra and entered nibbana. its not other way true that lay people trapped in sansāra are nirvaned too.

Obviously the other answers are correct, but from the time of Vedas to the modern period the term(s) have evolved. In early Vedic times (pre-Buddha), life’s goodness was brimming and people hoped to achieve immortality (moksha).  Early Vedic priests performed ritual sacrifice as a means to ensure passage into the afterlife.  The crossing over, or transmigration (samsara) of the person was supported by samskara, or rites of passage. Thus we can see how the prefix sam- (non-latin I guess) is similar to the prefix trans- (across, beyond).  Eventually the concept of rebirth must gain popularity, and I bet some priests even performed rebirth rites.  So the simple notion of samsara as transmigration gets rebooted, and now it’s more like reincarnation (rebirth). This probably got ppl wondering how many times they had died and been reborn, and accordingly, samsara is reimagined as an endless cycle of death-rebirth.  The priests performing spells that initiated rebirth are condemned as being witch doctors.  Their samskara are now viewed as ‘casual continua’, ie, cause for the continuation of rebirth, and thus death.  What was originally beneficial, a means of overcoming death, is now more like an omen of perpetual death.  Later on, Buddha or whoever introduces a better idea for overcoming death called Nirdvanda.  This basically means freedom or indifference from opposites, aka non-duality.  Buddha refers to this sublime state as deathless in his first sermon in the deer park.  One more thing.  Mostly we accept the term sankhara, perhaps a derivative of samskara, to mean formation or 'that which puts together, but the prefix sans- means without. As so combining we might get something like 'without putting together', 'without forming', 'without doing'...that's just food for thought.

The prefix sans- meaning “without” has a clear Latin origin. Even though Latin is known to have some Sanskrit influences, is there any clear evidence of that for this specific case?

@Sati Wiktionary claims that the Latin sine comes from a Proto-Info-European word for "self" thus meaning "by itself" and therefore "without".

but if we take 'withotu ' as meaning then whole buddha teaching becomes meaningless. because his teaching is getting rid of sankhara.

@ChrisW Proto Indo-European is the reconstructed common ancestor of Indic languages (like Sanskrit) and European languages (like Latin). Sine having a root at this source is not surprising at all, because the discipline of Historical Linguistics requires all reconstructed proto-languages to be able to explain linguistic trends downstream.

In any case, the related phoneme in Sanskrit we are looking at as far as this common ancestry is concerned would be स्व (svá), not सम्- (sam-).

@Sati So I said, yes. Incidentally (maybe you knew this) I was surprised to notice that the etymology of the word "Sanskrit" is also said to be san plus kṛ (make) -- i.e. like sankhara.


text:
Is it correct view, as in renunciation, or desire, to want to die
I am not asking about depression or suicidal thoughts but the actual aspiration for this life/human experience to end.
So of course the desire for material and immaterial existence (rebirths) are themselves two of the ten fetters. I may be incorrect but I take this as a desire to be reborn in either a material or immaterial form in the form or formless realms, not specifically a desire to be reborn in samsara or a desire to NOT be reborn at all.
There is the sutta of the monk who took the knife and was blameless, meaning he did not desire another form/rebirth so the Buddha did not say that his suicide was unvirtue, (I forgot the sutta name and number) which would lead me to assume that the desire to want to die itself is not unvirtuous.
So what I am actually asking is if this mindstate, the desire to want this life and human experience to end, is it a mindstate of renunciation, or a mindstate of desire for life/suffering to cease.
Realistically the end goal of the dharma is to not be reborn in existence.

If one has the desire to end the rebirth without eliminating causes, then it is a cause of suffering. (Vibhava tanha)

In the first sutta (Dhammacakka) that was preached by the Buddha at Baranasi, it is mentioned three types of Desire that is the cause of Suffering.

Kama tanha
Bhava tanha
Vibhava tanha

Herein, Vibhava tanha is interpreted as desire of Uccheda ditthi (annihilation) which is the desire of not to be born again (after this life or after number of lives).
But this desire of annihilation is ignorant of the fact that however much one wishes there will be no end to the cycle of rebirth unless he is eliminate the cause of rebirth.
The Buddhist view is there are causes for rebirth and as long as the causes exist there will be no end to the cycle of rebirth.
And if one eliminated the cause of rebirth, there will not be any rebirth for him. This fact denies the Sassata (eternalist) view.
Therefore, if one have the desire to end the rebirth without eliminating causes, then it is a cause of suffering. (Vibhava tanha)
And if one has the desire to be reborn repeatedly, then it is a cause of suffering. (Bhava tanha)
But the desire to paractice the correct path (related with dependent origination) is described as a type of useful desire in Commentaries while Kattukamyata-chanda (need for doing) is praised (as the pure one) over the craving for the path.

No. It is not a mindset of renunciation. It is simply craving.

SN45.170:0.3: Craving
SN45.170:1.1: “Mendicants, there are these three cravings.
SN45.170:1.2: What three?
SN45.170:1.3: Craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence.
SN45.170:1.4: These are the three cravings.

The remedy is the Noble Eightfold Path:

SN45.170:1.5: The noble eightfold path should be developed for the direct knowledge, complete understanding, finishing, and giving up of these three cravings.
SN45.170:1.6: What is the noble eightfold path?
SN45.170:1.7: It’s when a mendicant develops right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion, which rely on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripen as letting go.

Kaccayanagotta Sutta tells the following.

'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Things neither exist nor do not exist as per the sutta. If someone wants to end one's own life, it's clear the person is not seeing things clearly. And that requires a serene mind which is very hard if you are tangled in worldly affairs. Let's untangle and see reality as it is. Regards.

For example, there are cases where a monk has self immolated without showing any agony as per the spectators. It's clear mind is very powerful. However, physical ailments like insomnia, etc may make life hell. It's best to not do such things for petty reasons. Only for extreme cases may suicide be preferred. For e.g, the person is going to die sooner or later due to ailments. He could bypass the agonizing process before death using lethal injection, etc

Several topics on this site, tagged suicide, have answers which could help to address this question.
The second noble truth names, kāma-taṇhā, bhava-taṇhā and vibhava-taṇhā.
There are several questions on this site related to vibhava-taṇhā ...

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=vibhava-ta%E1%B9%87h%C4%81+is%3Aquestion

... so perhaps its meaning isn't clear -- but "desire, to want to die" might be vibhava-taṇhā, is it not?
There's also the topic of the Middle Way -- i.e. avoiding both of two extremes -- and there are suttas (e.g. SN 45.2, and SN 51.15) which I think imply that a goal is not "death" but is rather, "to live the holy life" -- brahmacariyā is interpreted or used to mean "chastity" but I think it has a more general meaning, i.e. life in the Sangha and according to the Vinaya.
Beware, that even "describing the advantages of dying" is explained as being "an offense of defeat".
In summary I think that "desire to die" and "desire to be reborn" are, both, forms of desire -- and not of right desire. Whereas a right desire (Right Resolve or Intention) might be as mentioned in SN 51.15

Have you ever had a desire to walk to the park,
but when you arrived at the park, the corresponding desire faded away?”

I think the word for "park" there also means monastery i.e. from when the monks lived in "forest monasteries".

The desire for material and immaterial rebirths are not two of the ten fetters. These two fetters are lust for material jhana & lust for immaterial spheres (jhana).
In MN 144, Channa, who took the knife blamelessly practiced euthanasia rather than suicide. Regardless, MN 144 does not say he did not desire another "rebirth".  The Pali here is "aññañca kāyaṁ upādiyati...natthi", which means "did to not attach to any new kaya". The word "kaya" means a "grouping" of five aggregates rather than the "physical body". In summary, Channa abandoned/put aside (nikkhipati) the five aggregates without longing for any other type/grouping of aggregates.
For example, the five aggregates of Channa were generating & experiencing great physical pain. Channa ended his life without wishing to be in any other conditioned state.

Arahant Venerable Revata "I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time like a worker his wage. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time mindful, alert." — Theragatha 14:1 https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Thag/thag14_1.html

Lol life is too long to be talking about death when someone is young enough.


text:
Brahmcharyavas : starting, ending
Last question:-
"Bramchariyavas has started" -> "ब्रह्मचर्यवास शुरू हुआ"।
Did this "occur" to anyone in past and the same has been mentioned in books? What are the surrounding indications for the same occurence?
I am open to any religion for its discussion but if outside Buddhism then  it must be accompanied with proper explanation of this statement, work left to be done, resolutions done to move further, path leading to this statement etc.
This might have occurred with few other things like images/world etc. indicating few other things, that's fine but this statement is must, as it is, without any beginning and ending with word "started".
I have read only, "bramchariyavas has been completed, what needed to be done has been done".. this occurred to gotama after achieving enlightenment.
References in bits & pieces are also welcome. Anger looking collections are also welcome.

One can also start with, "what's the brahmcharyavas that Buddha stated to end successfully?"

Where did you read that from?

Are you saying you're only interested in what "brahmacharya" means -- and not interested in the context i.e. what "starting, ending" means?

@ruben2020 Somewhere in suttas, it's mentioned as brahmcharya, somewhere (like in sutta summaries) as brahmchariyavas. Eg. in sammanya phal sutta (2nd chapter) of dighanikaya. 3 words Brahm/Brahma , charya, vas. In some of ancient Hindu scripts(as per my talks with some of these traditions) charya and modern day vas are almost same, in some charya is qualities, traits, characteristics etc. Vas is living. Brahm and Brahma are different in some and same in some. Brahm and par Brahm are also different in some and same in some.

For me, I m particularly interested in starting part, cause ending part is mentioned in suttas and if not explained then atleast a path to that is mentioned in form of core Buddha's teachings.

You mentioned that you've read about "Brahmacharya" being completed after Gotama's enlightenment. That's cool, but I'm afraid I can't find any instances where it was specifically "started" with the exact words you're looking for. Maybe it's out there somewhere, but it's hiding from me like a ninja. So, sorry, man, I can't give you any solid references or angry-looking collections on this one. But if you're into the whole Brahmacharya thing, there's plenty of other stuff to explore!

BRAHMACHARYA can interpret as avoid from sexual activity. because buddha saw sexual or other any desire or bonds cause to SANSARA (rebirth).
therefore monks have to avoid from sexual activity and follow BRAHMACHARYA

In the same way, brahmin, a Realized One arises in the world, perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed. He realizes with his own insight this world—with its gods, Māras and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans—and he makes it known to others. He teaches Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And he reveals a spiritual practice (brahmacariyaṁ) that’s entirely complete and pure.
A householder hears that teaching, or a householder’s child, or someone born in a good family. They gain faith in the Realized One, and reflect, ‘Living in a house is cramped and dirty, but the life of one gone forth is wide open. It’s not easy for someone living at home to lead the spiritual life (brahmacariyaṁ) utterly full and pure, like a polished shell. Why don’t I shave off my hair and beard, dress in ocher robes, and go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’
MN 27; stock sutta phrase

And what is right action? Avoiding killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual activity (abrahmacariyā).
SN 45.8; Noble Eightfold Path


text:
Is it believed to be better to be reborn as a deva or as a human again? Which should I be trying to be reborn as?
Is being reborn as a deva or human better? Can you achieve nirvana if you are reborn as a deva as well as a human?

The simple fact is that these are belief systems that hold back the practitioner, and what you perceive to be other realms are actually imaginary ideas not worthy of even holding to a belief system. When I began dropping these silly notions, I made tremendous headway and found peace in the here-and-now.

Max, why do you assume that every practitioner is like you?

@YesheTenley - there's nothing wrong with believing in these things, but to give yourself over to their notions is simply a mild form of psychosis. I don't recall anywhere in Theravada where this occurs. In fact, quite the opposite: one is encouraged to not think about themselves in the past or in the future. There are some Tibetan sects that do those strange things, but pragmatically, whatever they think they're doing it's all imagined stories made to look overly fantastical.

@Max, that is a very hardened, fixed, unyielding, rigid, fundamental, self-assured, conceited, point-of-view for something that may be a hard to understand, hard to know, and hard to see obscure phenomena. Careful that you are not holding views that you’ll need to relinquish to grow further.

@max, I’m drawn to your use of the  word pragmatic in your last comment to note that it might not be pragmatic to so doggedly deny and hold rigidly to the view that reality is such and such against these beliefs or that these beliefs are never helpful for anyone, anywhere, at any time. In fact, they might very well be just the medicine the doctor ordered as an antidote to such fixed and rigid beliefs denying them.

Thanks @Yeshe Tenley. Had a person come to me personally with this question, I would slap them square in the face with a string of sensible lyrics... and they would like it! ;-)

Which might or might not be appropriate given the individual person and her proclivities. Perhaps doing so would be met with no longer believing in kamma or the consequences of one's actions, perhaps not. Perhaps doing so would result in a loss of faith in the dhamma to the detriment of all, perhaps not. NOTE: I'm not saying to endorse this belief in all cases either. It is the seemingly wholesale rejection for all cases, for all persons, for all cultures, at all times in your first comment that I find concerning.

Ideally, you're a healthy human during a Buddha's dispensation so you can understand the teachings and practice them. Devas can still practice Dhamma but their world is so pleasurable that they're less likely to.
When it's not the Buddha's dispensation, being a deva seems like the better choice. Much less pain and much more pleasure than a human. And since the Dhamma is lost, there's no point in being a human.
But a better goal is to reach a level of awakening so you'll eventually escape samsara. Periods where the Dhamma are revealed are rare.

Essentially if I am reborn as a deva I am still able to escape samsara but its so pleasurable that I forget to achieve nirvana?

@Orionixe Basically, devas have too much fun and don't want to practice. They could practice and in the suttas you see that some do. The human realm has more pain so the need to practice is more obvious.

I see, speaking of wasn't there a school of Buddhism who's main goal was to get reborn as a deva?

@Orionixe There's Pure Land Buddhism. There goal is to be reborn into a pure land of Buddha Amitābha and from there get Enlightened. They believe practice in the pure land is easier than practice on Earth.

Do they believe they are reborn as a deva or just live among them?

Your future rebirth will depend upon specific past karma (from a limitless supply) ripening at an exact critical moment. Beings reborn in the deva realm have gone on to become Buddha. Beings reborn in the human realm have gone on to become Buddha.
Any rebirth in a higher realm is considered a fortunate rebirth so focus on generating karma for future rebirths in any higher realm while avoiding generating karma resulting in future rebirths in any lower realm.
Don't worry too much about human vs deva rebirth as our ability to control such rebirths at this point on the path isn't practical. Only advanced practitioners can hope to accomplish something with this and only at a very precise moment of death. More practical is to rejoice that you have a human rebirth for this very life and the opportunity to practice dharma!

If I get reborn as a deva I can still achieve nirvana? Or is it impossible since being a deva is extremely pleasurable and I would not want to be reborn as a lower being?

Just strive for a higher rebirth. By the time where this question will be relevant for you - ie., when you are able to exhibit some control over your mind a the moment of dying - you'll have long since had your answer.

Remember the life of the Buddha himself: he was locked in a palace surrounded by obscene luxury and didn't think of Dharma. Even with the merit he accumulated through countless lives, his awakening only started when he escaped the palace and saw death and suffering.
The entire realm of the devas is like that palace, largely free of suffering. Commonly, the only kind of dukha they encounter is knowing their life of pleasure is about to end, and when that happens, they don't have much time to practice Dharma. That's why you get the most opportunities to practice as a human. But as long as you're not in the lower realms, you have the capacity to practice and thus can achieve the fruit regardless if you're a human, asura or deva.

From Awareness Itself by Ven. Ajaan Fuang Jotiko, compiled by his disciple Ven. Thanissaro:

A group of laypeople who had studied the Abhidhamma together came to
Ajaan Fuang to try out his version of mental training, but when he
told them to sit, close their eyes, and focus on the breath, they
immediately backed off, saying that they didn't want to practice
concentration, for fear that they'd get stuck on jhana and end up
being reborn in the Brahma worlds. He responded, "What's there to be
afraid of? Even non-returners are reborn in the Brahma worlds. At any
rate, being reborn in the Brahma worlds is better than being reborn as
a dog."


text:
The Buddha went straight to Buddhahood without becoming a non-returner?
If you're a non-returner and you go to the Brahma realms, then that is the only way to attain Nibbana in the Brahma realms? Is it possible to attain Buddhahood in the Bramha realms?
Did the Buddha ever pass through the stage of non-returner or did he just jump straight to Buddhahood? An Arahant cannot become a Buddha? Aren't the 4 stages to enlightenment about mastering certain insights that one goes through momentarily?
He was the Buddha when he taught the Abhidhamma from Heaven?

You can blast through all four stages of enlightenment in one go.  That’s well-documented in the suttas.  The Buddha could have been a stream winner, once returner, or not even one of the noble ones when born into this world.

Arhant is derived from aryan

What do you mean? Brian Ruhe thinks Hitler was a Buddha? Idk, I'm in the dark here.

@Lowbrow Please see What is ariya or noble?

The Buddha explained in the sutta quote below that he attained the knowledge of the four noble truths and became completely liberated, all in one night.
On the other hand, a stream enterer is one who learned from a Buddha and has completely understood the four noble truths through insight, but still has seven more fetters to overcome before becoming fully liberated.
As such, we can conclude that the Buddha did not go through the four stages to become liberated. Rather, he attained it all in one go.
A Buddha attains the knowledge of the four noble truths only after fully overcoming ignorance. A stream enterer learned the knowledge of the four noble truths from a Buddha, then overcomes ignorance later.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the
mental fermentations. I discerned, as it had come to be, that 'This is
stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation
of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress...
These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations...
This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to
the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing,
was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the
fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance.
With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that
'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is
nothing further for this world.'
"This was the third knowledge I attained in the third watch of the
night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was
destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, &
resolute.
MN 19

Here's an analogy.
The Buddha is like Einstein who discovered the Theory of Relativity. He's the only one, and there's no one else like him.
The stream enterer is the physics bachelor's degree graduate who studied relativity and passed. He has proven understanding of the breadth of physics, but not the depth. He has entered the physics academic stream.
The once returner is the physics master's degree graduate. He needs to return to university one more time to do his doctorate.
The never returner is the physics doctorate graduate. He doesn't have to return to university again to do a degree, but he still needs to build up his research portfolio and experience.
The Arahant is the tenured physics professor. He has reached the peak of his career.
Einstein obviously never studied relativity for his degrees because he is the one who discovered it and instantly became the first professor of it.

A very sweet analogy :-)) Thank you!

Suttas such as SN 12.10 show the Buddha gradually awakened and therefore must have attained stream-entry.

Based on the Dharma sermons I've heard & read. If you mean "Anagami" — the 3rd stage of awakening — by "a non returner", then yes, all non-returners finish their awakening in the Brahma Realm. They are never reborn as humans, deva or other types of beings.
There are 31 Realms and all humans who achieved non-returner stage are born in Suddawasa Brahma Realm or ones above it.
Followers and others who are within the 4 stages of awakening can't become a Samma Sambuddha. BUT they can become a Buddha as the person who broke the cycle of being born again after reaching Arhat — the 4th stage of awakening. It's one of the meanings for the word Buddha.
I'm not sure the exact answer to your 3rd question, but I have seen various people who attained Arihat, Anagami, Sakrudagami and Sowan by just 1 Dhamma Sermon via the Tripitaka Sutras. So I think depending on the level of wisdom (Pragna) of the person, they can jump straight into a specific stage, but they still go through the stages from 1 to 4.
See the 3rd paragraph above on how we can consider Arahant as Buddha, but not as Samma Sambuddha.
I'm not sure the answer to your 5th question also.
Lord Buddha traveled to Deva Realms from the Human Realm when he taught the Abhidharma for the beings above the Human Realms.
Hope this answers your questions!

SN 12.10 appears to clearly describe the stream-entry of the Buddha-To-Be.
Iti 96 defines a non-returner simply as one that does not return to sensuality.
AN 3.86 says only non-returner & Arahants have completed concentration (jhana). MN 14 says when the Buddha-To-Be had mastered jhana his mind no longer could return to sensuality. Therefore, MN 14 appears to show when the Buddha-To-Be was a non-returner.
The following standard definition of a non-returner appears generally mistranslated:

In this teaching there are mendicants who have given up the five lower
fetters. All of them are reborn spontaneously. They are extinguished
there, and are not liable to return from that world.
Evaṁ svākkhāte, bhikkhave, mayā dhamme uttāne vivaṭe pakāsite
chinnapilotike yesaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ pañcorambhāgiyāni saṁyojanāni
pahīnāni, sabbe te opapātikā, tattha parinibbāyino, anāvattidhammā
tasmā lokā.

The term 'opapātikā' does not mean 'reborn'. AN 3.141 says:

And how is an excellent person fast, but not beautiful or well proportioned? It’s when a mendicant, with the ending of the five lower fetters, is opapātiko. They’re extinguished there, and are not liable to return from that world. This is how they’re fast, I say. But when asked a question about the teaching or training, they falter without answering.
This is how they’re not beautiful, I say. And they don’t receive robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick. This is how they’re not well proportioned, I say. This is how an excellent person is fast, but not beautiful or well proportioned.

The term 'parinibbāyino' appears to not refer to Nibbana. Instead, the term 'parinibbāyino' appears to merely refer to the complete extinguishment of the five lower fetters, by non-returning.
The term 'lokā' merely refers to mental states, such as in MN 79, where jhana is called "a world that is exclusively happy". AN 4.45 says:

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

In summary, SN 12.10 shows when Gotama attained stream-entry. MN 14 reports a time when Gotama was a non-returner. Regardless, the term 'non-returner' merely refers to not returning to sensuality & the five lower fetters. It does not mean not being reincarnated again on Planet Earth.


text:
Have devas ever been captured on camera?
Are there any instances of people unwillingly capturing photographic evidence of devas/angels? Could the UFO sightings or encounters have been angels or devas(specifically terrestrial devas) all along? Can some one please shed some light on this?

I closed this question as opinion-based, but if you or others disagree that this question is opinion-based and can justify that view, it can be reopened.


text:
What are the things that prompt people to follow the Dharma?
For me, it seems I remembered some Dharma proselytizing or something like that.  Someone was talking about the Dharma way back, maybe even in the 80's as if it was the way normal people talked about reality. I said to myself, "well that is impossible for a person to live in the rain in a shack on a fava bean", but I remained a little open to it. For years I tried to get into just the meditation part but in 2011-2012 I started watching Bhante Yuttadhamo and I got attached to the Dharma. I had some preconceptions about rain and monks but when Yuttadhammo taught about the rains retreat, that might have been the initial wrong view removed that resulted in the dam bursting.

B/c Buddha was so beautiful is probably why

Right understanding of the Dhamma and one's suffering will be a driving force for following the Dhamma and observing the five precepts. Suffering is not enough. Without right understanding you will be missing the big picture of Buddhas teaching and your practice will be meaningless.

Suffering is normally what prompts people to look for a way out of suffering and in turn liberation. It is what the Buddha himself experienced which drove him to seek freedom.
Suffering spring boarded me towards the dharma, though I was seeking out of repetition anyway as it seems as if I already understood dharma innately (probably from past karma)

Suffering and wanting to seek an answer to that suffering.

I don't follow the dharma per say, somewhat bitter nowadays, perhaps even willing to say I'm a prisoner of the dhamma. but what attracted me to it back in the day was my imagination.  The exotic elements I was affected by: out in the woods, bare-foot, living with animals, the adventure aspects, etc.  taking vacation in india was also fascinating to the same respect. Art furthers the imagination, Buddha and company made good models.  I am also attracted to the simplicity of living.  today's world is full of too much stuff that collects too much dust.  in fact, i take many of the parables literally.
Heedlessness is dust.
Dust follows on heedlessness.

Living the Dhamma life,
living the holy life:
This, they say, is the highest power.
But if, having gone forth
from home into homelessness,
you are harsh-mouthed,
delighting in injury, a stupid beast,
your life is more evil.
You increase your own dust.

Obscured by passion & aversion
—some brahmans & contemplatives—
people entrenched in ignorance,
delighting in endearing forms,
drink alcohol & fermented liquor,
engage in sexual intercourse,
unwise, consent to gold & silver,
live by means of wrong livelihood
—some brahmans & contemplatives.
These are said to be obscurations
by the Awakened One,
kinsman of the Sun.
Because of these obscurations
some brahmans & contemplatives
don’t glow,
don’t shine,
are impure,
dusty,
dead.

Having touched with his body
the deathless
property                  free
from acquisitions,
having realized the relinquishing
of acquisitions,
effluent-free,
the Rightly
Self-awakened One
teaches the state
with
no sorrow,
no dust.

“Household life is confining,
a realm of dust,
while going forth
is the open air.”

Just as sharp-bladed grass,
if wrongly held,
wounds the very hand that holds it–
the contemplative life, if wrongly grasped,
drags you down to hell.

Any slack act,
or defiled observance,
or fraudulent life of chastity
bears no great fruit.

If something’s to be done,
then work at it firmly,
for a slack going-forth
kicks up all the more dust.

I do find my abode has quite a lot of dust. but who knows, maybe the Yogacara are right, and the dusty world is only a projection of a dirty mind


text:
Relationship or mapping between Jhanas ( 4 + 4) and the four stages of Enlightment
Is there a mapping (or relationship) between the 8 stages of Jhanas and the 4 stages of Enlightenment.
This could be a very debatable topic, but really keen to know this.

No, they aren’t related.  You can reach the base of perception/non-perception and not even reach stream entry.  Case in point, the Buddha’s own original meditation teachers both achieved rarified arupa jhana but weren’t arahants.  There’s also plenty of canonical evidence that advanced meditators have been outright evil people or, at the very least, engaged in some pretty horrific acts.  Milarepa, for example, used his advanced siddha power won through meditation to commit murder.
So in short, just because you are an accomplished meditator doesn’t mean you’re enlightened.  Likewise, a very enlightened person can have an advanced degree of insight, but little to no jhana experience.  The only overlap is nirodha samapatti - the so called 9th jhana.  I forget which path level it requires specifically, but I’m pretty sure it’s anagami or “non-returner”.

To nitpick on Milarepa, if I remember correctly it wasn't Buddhist meditation that he studied before he caused that hail storm to revenge his relatives, it was with a non-buddhist teacher of Bon, before Milarepa became a Buddhist.

Semantics!   But there’s plenty of other examples.  Devadatta, according to the Pali canon, was also a siddha.  In fact, his pride regarding his meditative attainments and psychic abilities are what led to his downfall.

If there's a mapping, I never heard about it. But just from the common sense, you have to be a stream enterer just to start practicing meditation correctly.
People do all kinds of wrong meditation and call some stages of that the first jhana, the second jhana and so on, but in reality you can't do jhana if you have not entered the stream of the right practice by attaining the right understanding.


text:
Why does Buddhism use the word "realm" when describing one of the different races?
Why is this word used? It's very confusing and makes it sound like you are reborn into a world and not as a different race of being or a human again?
Like saying "rebirth in the human realm" to me could sound like I am reborn as an animal and live among humans.
Why not use the word races or species to described the 6 options of rebirth?

What is your problem with the word "realm"? Why does it sound like an animal? What is wrong with an animal?

Everyone returns to the spirit world, everyone is enlightened even animals.

The problem with the word "realm" is apparently that "realm" is an old word for "kingdom", and that I could for example theoretically live in some foreign kingdom without myself being a subject of that realm.

You should probably read a dictionary definition when you only know of a word in context. the word realm has multiple different defintions.

Buddhism isn't concerned with genetics, the phyla of biology, or social categories like race. When Buddhism talks about 'realms of reincarnation,' it is referring to the incarnation of certain mental structures or fixations. In the human realm one is capable of pursuing liberation consciously; in the animal realm conscious activity is overshadowed by more primal instincts, cravings and urges; in the ghost realms one is trapped entirely in karmic patterns... Some groups interpret that as reincarnation into an actual human, animal, or ghost-like being, other groups take it more as metaphor, other groups don't subscribe to the 'realms' tenet at all. Buddhism is diverse.
'Realm' is used to suggest self-enclosed worldviews, the way we might oppose the 'realm' of physics against the 'realm' of poetics. Don't read more into it than that.
I do feel the need to point out that the concept 'race' is not ontological. It is a thoughtless, reactive categorization system that wells up (as certain Buddhists might say) from the karma of the ghost/animal realms. Those who take race as a serious concept are trapped in a karmic pattern; they won't reach liberation until they shake it off.

+1 To me the Buddhist realm means roughly the same thing as the modern notion of Umwelt.

I think it's a translation of loka which is also translated "world" or "plane".


text:
If you are reborn as a Deva, are you to interact with humans?
If I were to get a rebirth as a Deva, is it possible for me to interact with humans or my loved ones again? Would it be possible for me to help guide humans or is that forbidden?

If you think you can believe your way into a favourable rebirth, then why not believe your way to enlightenment. This is the part of Buddhsim that keeps people's illusions alive, and any answer that plays up to the question only reinforces that illusion. Buddhsim can get very weird and dark, sometimes. Not worth it, mate. Go for the biggest nugget, free yourself!

"If I were to get a rebirth as a Deva, is it possible for me to interact with humans or my loved ones again?"
Yes!
"Would it be possible for me to help guide humans or is that forbidden?"
Yes, it would be possible to help guide humans.

are you a practicing Buddhist or a professor of religious studies? Not tryna be rude or anything you just appear as some random guy lol

I am neither a Buddhist nor a Professor. I tend more towards Taoism than Buddhism, but I respect the Buddha as the greatest human being in our history. I don't belong to any religion! I am an independent spiritual being and learn a lot from Buddhists. "Zen mind beginners mind!"

I cannot provide detailed references at the moment, as I am busy with other things.

Perhaps later on when I have more time.

Here are some stories I've collected of devas interacting with humans
https://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/4kammanto/fortune/index.html


text:
How to offer food in Buddhism?
I have never seen a Buddhist food offering at an altar. Can someone explain how it's done?

In our house, we offer flowers, tea, water to Lord Buddha for morning and evening. We offer food mostly rice & curry or whatever we eat for lunch before we eat around 11.30AM—12PM. Simplest way to offer food for Buddha, Dhamma, Sanga is keeping the "food" in front of Buddha statue at home and then saying,
→ I offer this food for Buddha, Dhamma, Sanga.
But you can optimize it further + gain the biggest benefits along the way using a couple of ways.

Always prepare the meals without eating the food. If you take 1Kg of rice for lunch, then don't eat it before offering to Lord Buddha.

Always offer the food to Buddha, Dhamma, Sanga qualities not Buddha or a specific monk alone. When you offer the food to the Thunuruwana, it effectively means you're offering that food to all the Lord Buddhas, all the Dhamma they taught and every single Buddhist Monk in the Past, Present, Future of the whole of Buddha Sasana. Offering like this means you're offering food for infinite Thunuruwan, so the benefits are also infinite till you reach Nibbana.

Also chant following gatha,
Adiwasetu No Bante
Bojanan Parikappitan
Anukampan Upadaya
Pathiganhatu Muttama

Other than offering food to Thunuruwan in front of your house's Buddha statue, you can also invite Buddhist Monks to your house to offer food and more items you wish to offer. But be sure to offer whatever you offer to Thunuruwan and the Sangha — Monks you invited — without just thinking to offer them to only those monks you invited.
How you set the Offer Scope affects the benefits you gained. If it's just invited monks, it'll be smaller than setting the scope to the whole Buddha Sasana.
Other than offering food to Buddha Statue, Invited Monks, you can also give food to other living beings. However, the biggest benefits come only when you offer food to Buddha Sasana compared to cats, dogs, non-buddhists. This is also explained in Tripitakaya, but I heard it from the sermons I've listened.
Hope this answers your question!

How can Lord Buddha accept the offering? My understanding is that Lord Buddha is gone in Nibanna. How can our prayers ever reach Him?

@MarinoKlisovich Yes, Lord Buddha does not consume the food. You're not simply offering him the food. You're offering the food to the qualities of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha. It's a kind of happiness free moment from Raga, Dwesha and Moha. And when we chant Gatha, Pirith, Sutra in front of a Buddha Statue, it's not to teach the same Dhamma he taught us, to him. It's for admiring the qualities of Buddha, Dhamma, Sanga, for generating merit, for reminding unseen beings the truth of world, for the possibility of our own Nibbana.

@MarinoKlisovich We don't pray or ask for anything from the Lord Buddha. We make a wish based on our merit generated via good deeds such as offering food, chanting etc., so it has a chance of becoming a reality one day. Also Lord Buddha has given us the most important thing — a way for us to stop Dhukka forever. As such there is nothing more we can wish for, except for the factors that helps us reach Nibbana without getting delayed any further.


text:
What did the Buddha say about courage?
☸What did the Buddha say about being afraid & handling fear?
☸Are there any scriptures about fear & courage?
☸What did he say about facing fear?
☸Is there any Buddhist practice that will help one face fear?

Very closely related: Which sutras are most directly relevant to the virtue of courage?. Possibly duplicate.

It didn't show me one former question that had the word courage in it. Something must be wrong with it.

Did you type Courage in the "Search on Buddhism..." input on the topbar? I see many results from this: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=courage

Those questions don't quite get at what I'm trying to find out. Is it ok if we keep it up? It might be helpful.

Also, I didn't check that way but I will from now on. Thanks for your help.

☸What did the Buddha say about being afraid & handling fear?
The Blessed One asks to contemplate about him (Dhajagga sutta).
Some suttas suggest to eliminate sensual desire which is the cause of fear.
☸Are there any scriptures about fear & courage?
Dhajagga Sutta, Bhayabherava sutta (there should be more)
☸What did he say about facing fear?

"Bhayam nama kamanametham adhivacanam"
"Fear means another word for sensual pleasures."

“Bhikkhus, for those who look up at the crest of the standard of
Sakka, lord of the devas; or of Pajapati, the deva-king; or of Varuṇa,
the deva-king; or of Isana, the deva-king, whatever fear or
trepidation or terror they may have may or may not be abandoned. For
what reason? Because Sakka, lord of the devas, is not devoid of lust,
not devoid of hatred, not devoid of delusion; he can be timid,
petrified, frightened, quick to flee.
“But, bhikkhus, I say this: If you have gone to a forest or to the
foot of a tree or to an empty hut, and fear or trepidation or terror
should arise in you, on that occasion you should recollect me thus:
‘The Blessed One is an arahant, perfectly enlightened, accomplished in
true knowledge and conduct, fortunate, knower of the world,
unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and
humans, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.’ For when you recollect
me, bhikkhus, whatever fear or trepidation or terror you may have will
be abandoned.

(there should be more quotes)
As long as one have to protect a desired object (eg: body,family etc.) he is fearful.
When there is a threat to an object one likes, the fear arises.
As long as one hold on to one or more sensual pleasures, the fear comes from the relevant object or objects.
The fear doesn't come from the objects that one has given up.
☸Is there any Buddhist practice that will help one face fear?

The Buddha advise monks to use the method mentioned in Dhajagga sutta.
Ordaining reduces the fear that comes from many things such as family and wealth.
Attaining Jhanas temporary eliminate Sensual desire/fear. (as long as one maintain the jhana)
Attaining Anagami-phala permanently eliminates Sensual desire/fear.

Buddha faced his fears in wilderness. Buddha said in Bhaya-bherava Sutta that the way to handle fear is to subdue it in whatever state one is.

"What if I, in whatever state I'm in when fear & terror come to me,
were to subdue that fear & terror in that very state?' So when fear &
terror came to me while I was walking back & forth, I would not stand
or sit or lie down. I would keep walking back & forth until I had
subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me while I was
standing, I would not walk or sit or lie down. I would keep standing
until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me
while I was sitting, I would not lie down or stand up or walk. I would
keep sitting until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear &
terror came to me while I was lying down, I would not sit up or stand
or walk. I would keep lying down until I had subdued that fear &
terror." -- Bhaya-bherava Sutta

Practice metta by chanting the Pali mantra: sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā. Whenever fear arises, you simply continue the meditation on loving kindness. That's the best practice for overcoming fear that I can recommend.

MN 4 is titled Fear and Dread. It's about how the Buddha before his Enlightenment sought out fearful places and how he handled the fear that arose. When fear arose, he would maintain his posture (sitting, standing, walking, laying down) until the fear subsided. He also reflected that he had good ethical behavior and his other good qualities.

Then I thought, ‘There are ascetics and brahmins with unpurified conduct of body, speech, and mind who frequent remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest. Those ascetics and brahmins summon unskillful fear and dread because of these defects in their conduct. But I don’t frequent remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest with unpurified conduct of body, speech, and mind. My conduct is purified. I am one of those noble ones who frequent remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest with purified conduct of body, speech, and mind.’ Seeing this purity of conduct in myself I felt even more unruffled about staying in the forest.

Why don’t I get rid of that fear and dread just as it comes, while remaining just as I am?’ Then that fear and dread came upon me as I was walking. I didn’t stand still or sit down or lie down until I had got rid of that fear and dread while walking. Then that fear and dread came upon me as I was standing. I didn’t walk or sit down or lie down until I had got rid of that fear and dread while standing. Then that fear and dread came upon me as I was sitting. I didn’t lie down or stand still or walk until I had got rid of that fear and dread while sitting. Then that fear and dread came upon me as I was lying down. I didn’t sit up or stand still or walk until I had got rid of that fear and dread while lying down.

I remember Andriy said wrote, something like, that Theravada is mainly about overcoming desire -- and Mahayana is mainly about overcoming aversion. So maybe there's more doctrine about "fear" in the Mahayana traditions.
I imagine "courage" as being an aspect of Vīrya so you may be looking for doctrine about that.
One of the suttas that comes to mind is Ahi Sutta: A Snake (AN 4.67) -- which recommends Metta, perhaps as an antidotes to perceiving creatures as enemies.

AN 4:184  Abhaya Sutta | Fearless  —  Four reasons why some people fear death and others don’t.

...
“And who is the person who, subject to death, is afraid & in
terror of death? There is the case of the person who has not abandoned
passion, desire, fondness, thirst, fever, & craving for sensuality.
Then he comes down with a serious disease. As he comes down with a
serious disease, the thought occurs to him, ‘O, those beloved sensual
pleasures will be taken from me, and I will be taken from them!’ He
grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious.
This is a person who, subject to death, is afraid & in terror of
death.
“Then there is the case of the person who has not abandoned passion,
desire, fondness, thirst, fever, & craving for the body. Then he comes
down with a serious disease. As he comes down with a serious disease,
the thought occurs to him, ‘O, my beloved body will be taken from me,
and I will be taken from my body!’ He grieves & is tormented, weeps,
beats his breast, & grows delirious. This, too, is a person who,
subject to death, is afraid & in terror of death.
“Then there is the case of the person who has not done what is good,
has not done what is skillful, has not given protection to those in
fear, and instead has done what is evil, savage, & cruel. Then he
comes down with a serious disease. As he comes down with a serious
disease, the thought occurs to him, ‘I have not done what is good,
have not done what is skillful, have not given protection to those in
fear, and instead have done what is evil, savage, & cruel. To the
extent that there is a destination for those who have not done what is
good, have not done what is skillful, have not given protection to
those in fear, and instead have done what is evil, savage, & cruel,
that’s where I’m headed after death.’ He grieves & is tormented,
weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. This, too, is a person
who, subject to death, is afraid & in terror of death.
“Then there is the case of the person in doubt & perplexity, who has
not arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma. Then he comes
down with a serious disease. As he comes down with a serious disease,
the thought occurs to him, ‘How doubtful & perplexed I am! I have not
arrived at any certainty with regard to the True Dhamma!’ He grieves &
is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. This, too,
is a person who, subject to death, is afraid & in terror of death.
“These, brahman, are four people who, subject to death, are afraid &
in terror of death.
“And who is the person who, subject to death, is not afraid or in
terror of death?
...