text:
How could one know that Nibbana is the cessation of consciousness if there is no consciousness?
How could one know that Nibbana is the cessation of consciousness if there is no consciousness?
I can't see how one could know.

I will explain sutta expression & a classical Theravadin take on this first.

“This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.”

The Arahant is fully released from greed, anger & delusion and it is called Nibbana with residue on account of the absence of delusion, greed & anger.
Is this the only way the word Nibbana is used? No it's not the only way.

“Reverend, they speak of ‘extinguishment in the present life’. In what way did the Buddha speak of extinguishment in the present life?”
“First, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption. To this extent the Buddha spoke of extinguishment in the present life in a qualified sense. …
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha spoke of extinguishment in the present life in a definitive sense.” https://suttacentral.net/an9.51/en/sujato

Note here that cessation of perception & feeling attainment is that by seeing which defilements come to an end.
It is said that cessation of perception & feeling attainment is on the treshold of Nibbana and one is then absorbed in dependence on nibbananirodha principle.

When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected."[3]
[3] Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.

There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless. - sn22.080

"His consciousness, while carrying on the practice of bringing to mind (i.e., noticing), passes beyond the continuous occurrence of phenomena and alights upon non-occurrence. One who, having practiced in the correct manner, has alighted upon non-occurrence, O king, is said to have realized Nibbana." - Questions of King Milinda

And here the signless liberation should be understood as the noble path that has occurred by making Nibbána its object through the signless aspect. For that path is signless owing to the signless element having arisen, and it is a liberation owing to deliverance from defilements.34 In the same way the path that has occurred by making Nibbána its object through the desireless aspect is desireless. And the path that has occurred by making Nibbána its object through the void aspect is void. - Vsm

As to OP actual question

How could one know that Nibbana is the cessation of consciousness if there is no consciousness?

This is analogical to these questions posed to the Buddha

There is the case, Ananda, where the monk would be percipient in this way: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' It's in this way that a monk could have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.006.than.html

"Friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"
"Yes, friend Ananda, he could..."
"But how, friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"
"Once, friend Ananda, when I was staying right here in Savatthi in the Blind Man's Grove, I reached concentration in such a way that I was neither percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet I was still percipient."
"But what, friend Sariputta, were you percipient of at that time?"
"'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me, friend Ananda, as another perception ceased. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame arises as another flame ceases, even so, 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me as another one ceased. I was percipient at that time of 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding.'" https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.007.than.html

Or these variants

Ven. Sariputta was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Feeding Sanctuary. There he said to the monks, "This Unbinding is pleasant, friends. This Unbinding is pleasant."
When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"
"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.034.than.html

There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. This is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that. Now it's possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, 'Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?' When they say that, they are to be told, 'It's not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.'" https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.than.html

It is said that one who attains cessation of perception & feeling gets the "dhamma eye" and sees with wisdom due to the exceptionally clear faculties of a person who is released in dependence on it.
It is not experienced through what can be grasped with wrong view to be the mind/consciousness or senses of a person.
There is a direct knowing of that which is not experienced through the allness of the all. It's not like losing consciousness, it's a different mode of reality which is the cessation principle of what is thought of as mundane reality.
Rather than thinking that consciousness cognizes it's own cessation, think that talking about consciousness only goes as far as the conditioned element goes.
The conditioned element is that which changes as it persists. We can think about it and make philosophical models of how it works in terms of consciousness & whatnot.
The cessation of the conditioned element is known to be an altogether different reality which persists without change.
Nothing comes out of the conditioned nor does anything having grasped the conditioned comes to grasp/experience the unconditioned, rather the conditioned ceases to persists and that truth
& reality of cessation  persists without change in it's place & is not thought of in terms of consciousness etc (terms pertaining to the understanding of the conditioned).
The conditioned having been ceases and with that all modes of being cease and there is then a freedom from being & a freedom to be anything whilst not being anything.

There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the
conditioned element and the unconditioned element. Bhikkhus, there are
these three characteristics that define the conditioned. What three?
An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it
persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the
conditioned. The born, come-to-be, produced,  The made, the
conditioned, the transient, Conjoined with decay and death, A nest of
disease, perishable, Sprung from nutriment and craving's cord — That
is not fit to take delight in.

There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the
unconditioned element.
“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the
unconditioned. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen,
and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three
characteristics that define the unconditioned.” "There is, bhikkhus, a
not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If,
bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made,
not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born,
brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a
not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an
escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made,
conditioned." The escape from that [from the conditioned],  the
peaceful, beyond reasoning [beyond objectification],  Constant, The
not-born, the unproduced, The sorrowless state that is void of stain,
The cessation of states associated with suffering, The stilling of the
conditioned — bliss.
There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no
fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base
consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of
nothingness, no base consisting of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another
world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is
no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed,
not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering

Exemplary... ;-)

Nibbana is experienced when the mind (including consciousness) is free of defilements. So, there is no permanent cessation of consciousness for the living arahant, unless you mean the cessation of defiled consciousness.
This is also known as Nibbana element with residue left or Unbinding property with fuel remaining, from Iti 44. The residue or fuel remaining refers to the undefiled aggregates including consciousness.
Ven. Thanissaro's commentary on Iti 44:

With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining
(anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the
flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the
fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel"
here is the five aggregates. While the arahant is
still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do
not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
here or anywhere else.

Or do you mean Nirodha Samapatti? In this state, the person entering Nirodha Samapatti would have temporary complete cessation of consciousness.

Nirodha Samapatti:
'attainment of extinction' (S. XIV, 11), also called
saññā-vedayita-nirodha, 'extinction of feeling and perception', is the
temporary suspension of all consciousness and mental activity,
following immediately upon the semi-conscious state called 'sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception' (s. jhāna, 8).

Classical theravada holds that either signless concentration or satpatthana is required to abandon greed & aversion.

There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless.[4]https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.080.wlsh.html

It is also held that signless is an apprehension of cessation of perception & feeling release. See comy https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html

Therefore classical Theravada holds that cessation of perception & feeling is required to get to Anagami not that it's available only to Anagami.

I think your answer is best converted to a comment because it doesn't answer the question and can be taken to make unfortunate implications about sannavedananirodha and phalasamapatti

This 7th century comy take on this which you posted is very controversial and is at odds with sutta and other comy

@Buddhism It isn't apparent to me what you mean by your comments and I'm not even sure how to phrase a question that would allow you to explain... The comments look like non-sequiturs.

What i mean is that the first paragraph makes a statement about a technical term "nibbana element wih residue"

"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.

This is also called "unprovoked release of the mind". This is fine but then he says "there is no cessation of consciousness lest you mean nirodha samapatti which is only for anagami +". This is wrong because Theravada holds that signless release is a release in dependence on nirodhadhatu and Sutta say that signless release must be practiced for removal of greed & anger which are absent in anagami +.

release in dependence on the nibbananirodhadhatu is absolutely necessary for attainment of Sotapanna fruition and it is with that attainment one attains path which there & then leads to cessation of aggregates which is what the dhamma eye sees

I just think it's wrong to say only anagami and arahants with perfected arupa jhana can attain knowing & seeing of the asoka state [sorrowless; cessation of aggregates based on nirodha principle] and this is certainly not classical Theravada where there is no destruction of taints without knowledge & vision of release [cessation].

The comy posted probably isn't supportive of the answer's assertion because iirc path attainments are associated with the cessation principle according to vsm and this excerpt focuses on a narrowly defined subset of attainments differing in which & whether fetters are removed as one emerges from the attainment of release which can last a very brief time or up to 7 days, eitherway it is a full experience.

Will be happy to be proven wrong

@Buddhism What I meant by my answer is that the Nibbana element with residue has consciousness still functioning for the arahant. It's only defiled consciousness  that has ceased permanently. However, any person who enters the state of nirodha samapatti would have temporary complete cessation of consciousness in that state. I did not say that nirodha samapatti is needed or not needed. And on that note, there are instances in the suttas where individuals who are already advanced, become anagamis or arahants just after listening to a discourse by the Buddha, like Bahiya.

@Buddhism I have deleted the criteria for attainment of nirodha samapatti from the quote because it is unrelated to the OP's question.

That's agreeable, i took issue with you seemingly saying that only anagami & arahants can attain samadhi based on the nirodha principle as that was in the excerpt preceded by "unless this..". Not that u need it but i approve of this modification thanks

I am assuming you are referring to a passage in the Heart Sutra:

Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not
differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is
emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses,
consciousness.
Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they do not appear
or disappear, are not tainted or pure, do not increase or decrease.
Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings, perceptions, impulses,
consciousness.
No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no color, no
sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind; no realm of
eyes and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness. No ignorance
and also no extinction of it, and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of them. No suffering, no origination, no
stopping, no path, no cognition, also no attainment with nothing to
attain.

Emptiness in this Sutra refers not to nothingness, but to the opposite: the interdependence of all phenomena, both mental and physical. There is some discussion among scholars on whether the sutra originated in China or India, to answer your question I'll use the Chinese/Japanese characters.
In Chinese and Japanese, emptiness is often represented by the character mu 無, which also means "no" or "negative". We don't have an exact equivalent in English for mu, so the Sutra loses something of its inner meaning by just using "no".
The sutra is not stating that there is "no X in Y" but inferring that X = Y. Otherwise said, there is no such thing as "consciousness" that is independently existing, it is a manifestation of emptiness.
The sutra goes on giving some examples that are linked to consciousness: sight, hearing, smell, etc. These examples refer to the state of mind where one would "listen, but not hear" as they say in Zen: that is, the senses function, but the mind does not name the perceptions. It's like saying: "sense it, but don't name it in your head". Because once you name it, it's no longer the perception, but your mental interpretation of the perception. This is what is meant in Mahayana by the expression "emptiness is the mother of ten thousand named things".

The last expression sounds like a quote from the Tao Te Ching -- is it Mahayana also?

I remember reading the quote in a Chan master's writings - Chan was heavily influenced by Daoism. I had to look up the text, but yes, it is referred to in the Xinxin Ming: "If the eye never sleeps, all dreams will naturally cease.  If the mind makes no discriminations, the ten thousand things are as they are, of single essence.  To understand the mystery of this One-essence is to be released from all entanglements.  When all things are seen equally, the timeless Self-essence is reached.  No comparisons or analogies are possible in this causeless, relationless state."

I'd read it was influenced, only I was surprised to see in that expression such a direct quote from the first lines of the Tao Te Ching.

It seems to me that theoretically one could see the no consciousness of Nibbana from a point in time i.e. from "outside" no consciousness but looking into no consciousness.
The seeing would have to be "supramundane" though because otherwise it would be mere fantasy.
One would need to make sure that the seeing isn't delusion.
Note: I am not denying that there is also the "experience" of no consciousness from "inside".

Id advice to just memorize the sutta expression & growing into understanding it. If you try to use your own words to explain these concepts it gets uintelligible. Buddha's monks often didn't understand these things in the discourses and later attained the goal, it's no big deal if one doesn't get it at first as long as one learns & ponders that the body & that which is called mind consciousness or intellect are not one's self or personal. There is no transmigitation but there is rebirth, like when learning, the same knowledge goes from the teacher to the student but isn't the same knowledge.

I guess the main thing I am trying to convey is that it seems possible but I don't know how.

Is like this whole state of changing existence just procreates itself due to internal causes. It's analogical to how families keep making new generation as old dies of. If understanding is developed to supress delusion then there is a dispassion & disinterestedness and then a stilling of this procreation, there consciousness doesn't land on an object of ideation or sensory medium as opposed to how one could say it lands on an object of ideation or sensory variety as usual for this or that being.

And by whole state of usual being i mean the story and content of your life. It's like a continious conception & perception of the entirety of nature through a person's pov but it isn't at all personal and is like an idea entertained by giving of attention due to an inclination & development of a particular storyline

Here's a Mahayana explanation.
I suppose you were thinking about the twelve nidanas and how the whole chain, including vijnana, ceases with cessation of ignorance?
Please know that "vijnana" is strictly speaking not consciousness. That's a very approximate translation. Depending on context vijnana should be translated as either "experience of world and the objects" or more technically as "semiosis".
Please look up this word. Semiosis means interpretation of signs into their meanings. Like when you hear a certain sound and you recognize that as e.g. barking of dog. This is the foundation of all (regular, unenlightened) mental processes, they all have semiosis at the bottom.
But enlightened mind does not function like that. It is capable of semiosis as a kind of "backward compatibility mode" but that's not its main modus operandi.
Enlightened mind's state is not discrete. It's not prone to jumping to conclusions. When it hears what you recognize as "barking of dog" it takes that as information that may potentially have a number of interpretations but it doesn't conclude on any of them, it keeps its options open. It never concludes on an interpretation and that's exactly why it never gets out of sync, and that is why it's not subject to suffering.
Enlightened mind is not "vijnana". When ignorance ends, "vijnana", the crude semiotic mind, dissolves. At that time the fundamental mind of enlightenment ("rigpa" in Tibetan) that has always been there is no longer obscured by the discrete forms of regular mind. The mind of enlightenment is not unconscious - it knows everything the regular mind knew, and more. It's just a different kind of knowledge, formless interconnected simultaneous knowledge ("prajna") - as opposed to the crude "this means that" of semiosis.
So there's no contradiction. When ignorance ends - vijnana ends and the primordial clarity known as rigpa or prajna is unveiled. This clarity is what "knows" the cessation of regular mind.

Does the term vijnana have a context outside of the experience of the world and its objects? By the way, I'm using the term outside quite liberally and figuratively, or as a very loose way to float the concept of vijnana from other perspectives. Linguistically, it's all I have at the moment. What do you think?

As usual, wonderful answer!

@NeuroMax what exactly do you mean by "have" in "have a context"? Vijnana can be used in context of the twelve nidanas or it can be used in context of the five skandhas or it can be used in general Buddhist context as a synonym of defiled mind.

I'm not quite sure any more. I've spent the last several days recovering from a bout of confusion which came coupled with a chattering mind. Sort of like yackety-yak-yackety-yak non-stop. Maybe just ignore that question. I appreciate your answers. I've been trawling through them for over two years. They have held me in good stead. ;-)

Being "not quite sure" is a step in the right direction :)

Yes, I agree. Where there's uncertainty, I see it. Sometimes fall into it, only to return. Frustrating. Vijnana splutters, stops and starts. Vijnana is not enlightenment as you quite rightly assert in your answer.


text:
What is the origin or history of the concept of 'Buddha Sasana"?
There is some information here at wikipedia
I am curious to know if that came from Buddha himself or mentioned in any suttas. The 'sasana' concepts restricts appearence of solitary buddhas or Prateyakabuddhas or paccekabuddhas (as described in Isigili Sutta and Rhinocerous Sutta) without a Sangha. Any thoughts...

Here are some pali sutta references.

Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have lasted 1,000 years. But now that they have obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life will not last long, the true Dhamma will last only 500 years. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_51.html

“That’s the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis. There is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. Just as there is no disappearance of gold as long as a counterfeit of gold has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of gold when a counterfeit of gold has arisen in the world, in the same way there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN16_13.html#sn16.13note01

I think it's natural to assume that 500 years refers to the appearance of counterfeit Dhamma but there are people who believe otherwise.
There is a lot of controversy around how disappearance comes about.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is masturbation a sin when we do it to avoid intercourse with other people?
I masturbate to avoid having sex with other people. I've masturbated quite a lot. I don't want to have sexual intercourse with anyone else though I love sex. I've been keeping my body away from sexual desire with other men and found masturbation as a good feeling. I've never had any imagination of anyone else or rarely (if it does, it should be a person that I really like or dating with but I just keep desire away from him, again rarely). I also have known that masturbation could prevent sexual assaults. Is this a sin or not?

Hi! Welcome to the community. Does this answer help?

First off, Buddhism and karmic faiths generally don't really have a concept of 'sin'. 'Sin' is a Western conception — a feature of Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) faiths — that points at behavior that is punishable by some divinity. In karmic faiths, behaviors contain the seeds of their own consequences. Behavior that leads one astray isn't 'sinful'; it is misguided, unskilled, steeped in ignorance, etc...
Masturbation isn't sinful for a Buddhist. The question for a Buddhist is whether the act leads one further into ignorance or towards realization.
Buddhist monastics set aside sexuality less because of its outward consequences — social evaluations, pregnancy, possible diseases, etc — than because of its inward consequences. Sexual activity produces strong emotions, and can lead to attachments, desires, cravings, etc. Sexuality does not easily lend itself to the cultivation of peace and detachment that lies at the core of Buddhist practice (though Tantric practitioners might disagree), and since monastics are intent on creating the best possible environment for realization, sexuality gets in their way.
This isn't as true for lay practitioners, who aren't as dedicated to the practice (at this point in their spiritual development), and who live within the conventional world of love, marriage, children, and such. Lay practitioners are advised (more or less) to keep sexuality from becoming the kind of obsessive behavior that causes harm to oneself or others. Affairs, 'playing around', abuse or degradation, etc, are not 'sins', but they can cause harm to others and foster unhealthy attitudes in oneself, and so one must 'take care.' In that same vein, there is nothing specifically wrong with masturbation, except that it too can foster unhealthy attitudes, and can have an impact on your relationships with others. If you are constantly thinking about masturbation and the pleasure it brings you, for instance, you will find it very difficult to maintain a calm, peaceful mindset, and who knows what effects that constant craving for pleasure might have on your worldview? One can be fixated on masturbation just as easily as one can be fixated on having sex with others; neither fixation is likely to work out for the best. Meditating through a bout of sexual energy might give you a lot of insight into whatever karmic forces are at play in your life...
P.s. Just so it's said, masturbation does not prevent sexual assaults. Masturbation certainly does not prevent anyone from being assaulted by others — I mean, how would that work? — and while masturbation might ease the momentary frustrations of some person who is likely to commit sexual assault, it is not a cure or solution. Sexual assault is not about sexuality; it's about power and dominance (in the same way we sometimes see dogs mount each other to establish leadership), and relieving the momentary sexual urge does nothing to relieve the deeper tanhā for subduing others. That is a hazardous misconception; please don't spread it.

Masturbation is not a sin (transgression) for laypeople in Buddhism. It is only a sin for monks.
Masturbation is incomparably far safer than engaging in sexual acts.
Uncommitted sex with others leads to separation from the loved and other negative emotions resulting in sticky addiction, humiliation, shame & regret.

It hurts you, it is like buying something you know you can't afford.
It might hurt you less than doing something else but it still hurts you.
It is maybe not immediately evident how it hurts you but neither is living beyond your means immediately painful.
It is like stealing from yourself because you are with that conditioning your brain in a wrong way and it is you who will have to put in the work to undo it in order to direct the mind to the Eightfold Path.
Furthermore when you understand your behavior to not be in line with your ideals you will experience a lot of anxiety and vexation.
This can not be avoided because your brain is then wired in a way that you know that you are essentially breaking yourself when you do what you know you shouldn't do and aren't doing what you think you should be doing.
When you have work to do for the undoing of unwholesome tendencies which are a result of a frequent giving of unskillful attention, then you are just adding insult to injury by signing up for more sadness that doesn't have to be there by doing more of what got you into trouble in the first place.
Does this make it a sin?
I don't know this term's application here but it's certainly on a spectrum of bad behavior, even tho the thoughts of restraint & avoiding women are more or less skillful.
That being said restraint is good in all circumstance and if feel this makes things easier for you then it's obviously the lesser evil and you should pick that over having intercourse until you can undo & overcome.
Id say don't worry about it but also don't fool yourself into thinking that there is no harm in that for you because it certainly is a stumbling block and you should recognize danger in trifling things because it's likened to grasping a hot rock, it is better to know that ut's hot to minimize the damage.
Here pali sutta instruction

Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of loathing and
abiding much in it, the sexual thought keeps away, it shrinks and
rolls away.
[a] “And what, Ānanda, is the perception of unattractiveness? Here, a
bhikkhu reviews this very body upward from the soles of the feet and
downward from the tips of the hairs, enclosed in skin, as full of many
kinds of impurities: ‘There are in this body hair of the head, hair of
the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow,
kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery,
stomach, excrement, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears,
grease, saliva, snot, fluid of the joints, urine.’ Thus he dwells
contemplating unattractiveness in this body. This is called the
perception of unattractiveness.
[x] "Furthermore... just as if a sack with openings at both ends were
full of various kinds of grain — wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney
beans, sesame seeds, husked rice — and a man with good eyesight,
pouring it out, were to reflect, 'This is wheat. This is rice. These
are mung beans. These are kidney beans. These are sesame seeds. This
is husked rice,' in the same way, monks, a monk reflects on this very
body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on
down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things:
'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin,
flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura,
spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile,
phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid
in the joints, urine.' "In this way he remains focused internally on
the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by
anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body
in & of itself.
[y] "Furthermore... just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice,
having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into
pieces, the monk contemplates this very body — however it stands,
however it is disposed — in terms of properties: 'In this body there
is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the
wind property.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body
in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in
the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of
itself.
[6] "Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel
ground — one day, two days, three days dead — bloated, livid, &
festering, he applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is
its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate'...
"Or again, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel
ground, picked at by crows, vultures, & hawks, by dogs, hyenas, &
various other creatures... a skeleton smeared with flesh & blood,
connected with tendons... a fleshless skeleton smeared with blood,
connected with tendons... a skeleton without flesh or blood, connected
with tendons... bones detached from their tendons, scattered in all
directions — here a hand bone, there a foot bone, here a shin bone,
there a thigh bone, here a hip bone, there a back bone, here a rib,
there a breast bone, here a shoulder bone, there a neck bone, here a
jaw bone, there a tooth, here a skull... the bones whitened, somewhat
like the color of shells... piled up, more than a year old...
decomposed into a powder: He applies it to this very body, 'This body,
too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable
fate.'

Or developing this line of reasoning acc to comy if u want to try;

“When this body is born it is not born inside a blue, red or white
lotus or water-lily, etc., or inside a store of jewels or pearls,
etc.; on the contrary, like a worm in rotting flesh, in a rotting
corpse, in rotting dough, in a drain, in a cesspool, etc., it is born
in between the receptacle for undigested food and the receptacle for
digested food, behind the belly lining, in front of the backbone,
surrounded by the bowel and the entrails, in a place that is stinking,
disgusting, repulsive, and extremely cramped, being itself stinking,
disgusting, and repulsive. When it is born thus, its causes
(root-causes) are the four things, namely, ignorance, craving,
clinging, and kamma, [599] since it is they that bring about its
birth; and nutriment is its condition, since it is that that
consolidates it. So five things constitute its cause and condition.
And of these, the three beginning with ignorance are the
decisive-support for this body, as the mother is for her infant, and
kamma begets it, as the father does the child; and nutriment sustains
it, as the wet-nurse does the infant.”

I agree that it is an obstacle to liberation, but I’m not so sure about it being hurtful, since it causes no harm to anybody. So is it unskillful for a monastic? Yes. Is it reprehensible in a lay person? I think not at all.

It hurts one in that it requires a giving of unwise attention to the theme of attractiveness and this becomes an inclination of mind. It being an inclination one will be beset with hindrances on it's account and were one to die not having overcome & undone this will lead to a lower than otherwise birth and plenty of vexation.

There are beautiful objects; frequently giving unwise attention to them — this is the nourishment for the arising of sensual desire that has not arisen, and the nourishment for the increase and strengthening of sensual desire that has already arisen.
— SN 46:51

What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one "papanca" (objectifies?). Based on what a person papanca, the perceptions & categories of papanca assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable by the eye.. - MN 18

Seclusion from hindrances isn't only for monks;  the Blessed One said to him, "Householder, you have provided the community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick, but you shouldn't rest content with the thought, 'We have provided the community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick.' So you should train yourself, 'Let's periodically enter & remain in seclusion & rapture.' That's how you should train yourself." - AN 5:176

Seclusion from unwholesome states is what is talked about, such as pleasure of sensuality, hindrances & vexation.

+1 excellent answer I Can't understand why 3 people had downvoted this.

It is very nice that one is at least allowed to speak:)

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


text:
How does one effectively understand & navigate through the suicide cases found in the canon?
There's a question regarding the Dhamma that I really wish to rectify and clear up with you and that's regarding the suicide cases of Channa, Vakkali and Godhika - When I first came across these cases, I was really disappointed and discouraged to practice the Dhamma because I saw Dhamma as the way to prevent people from committing such acts in the first place, but if by practicing the path of Dhamma and reaching Arahant stage and this is a possible blameless result, I became very disillusioned and anxious over the path, moreover hearing the cases of Bhikkhu Samahita and Bikkhu Nanavira also fuelled this, creating a fear that this may be a possible outcome of developing the path.
My mental clarity and wellbeing plummeted since hearing these cases, since it raised a lot of doubts and confusions, esp because Dhamma used to be something that gave me hope and is foundational to me, but now there's a lingering sense of hopelessness if this is a possible result of the practice. When I ignore this topic I feel good again, but when it resurfaces again to my mind I feel quite hopeless and anxious again, I know there's so many people who have heard of these cases and who most certainly haven't responded to these cases adversely and in a negative way, so my question is, in light of such cases what is the best way that one should view/understand such cases so that one's own practice and wellbeing isn't affected and that one can continue to practice the path with security, hope, joy, contentment and composure, and walk the path correctly without falling into wrong-views?
The ways I have tried to understand and view such cases is that they were cases of euthanasia and since they are highly debated as to whether those 3 monks were arahants before or after they committed suicide, I have realised it is better to instead focus on the 10 Great Disciples of the Buddha who embodied the Dhamma to a greater extent such as Arahant's Mahakassapa, Sariputta, Moggalana, Subhuti, Rahula etc, and hence are the best role-models for one walking the path, Sariputta in fact says
"The Teacher has been served by me; the Awakened One’s bidding, done; 70 the heavy load, laid down; the guide to becoming, uprooted. And the goal for which I went forth from home life into homelessness I’ve reached: the end of all fetters. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time as a worker his wage. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time, mindful, alert." This quote is what has personally given me hope that those cases of Suicide are from non-Arahant monks - and thus I have learned to place my faith again by discarding these controversies, and listening to the Dhamma of every monk who have talked on this manner, who have all labelled it is as an akusal (unskilful deed) that must be removed from the mind.
I feel like I've answered my own question in many respects, but I still would love to hear another Dhamma practitioner's perspective on this, so that I can reach a more holistic and objective understanding on how to move forward and best navigate myself through these knots & controversies in the Dhamma and not fall into wrong-views.
Thank-you so much for taking the time to read this post, I really sincerely appreciate it.

Would you welcome an answer from the perspective of the path of the Bodhisattva? I ask because this question primarily deals with Pali canon sutta and mentions two Theravada practitioners, but I think the perspective from the path of the Bodhisattva would be beneficial...

@YesheTenley The OP didn't tag Theravada, so you may answer from a Mahayana perspective.

First of all you are equating the breakup of an Arahant's body to the breaking up of the body of a non-Arahant, the two are not the same.
Death is spoken of a as a requisite preceeding [re]birth. There is no birth for an Arahant, this is a difference. An Arahant doesn't die, with the breakup of the body they become completely released from all modes of being.
You are also slipping by the fact that Arahants are more or less the same in mind, different only in body.
It's not like one Arahant is depressed and kills himself whereas another is more psychologically resilient.
As i see it, Ven. Channa used the the knife because he considered that his being there wasn't needed as he was gravely ill. He had done his work here and had every right to end it as he sees fit.
In some circumstances Arahants do choose to go early but that is as far as it goes.
As for Ven. Nanavira and Ven. Samahita, i have little to no interest in reading works of disciples and will probably never know what Nanavira wrote in his notes. I just think reading the words of the teacher is superior that's all.
I was sympathetic to Ven. Samahita due to him always taking the time to pay homeage. Whether he was this or that doesn't matter to me as even if he was an Arahant it is of no help to me now.
As to controversies, imo the Sutta are explicit enough for anyone to make up their own mind but of course no matter how explicit texts are people will bend over backwards to maintain their presupposition. These suttas are imho so clear that i think 100/100 trained logicians will interpret them in the same way when using rules of inference and epistemological razors.

Thanks for the very helpful answer. Here is a relevant quote: > SN22.56:5.2: Those who are well freed are consummate ones.

SN22.56:5.3: For consummate ones, there is no cycle of rebirths to be found.

Also here: "
The Dhammapada
Chapter 2, Heedfulness

Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already." - dhp 21.

The heedful are the arahants because it is said that lower disciples have work to do in regards to heedlessness.

Obviously they were cases of euthanasia, since the monks were elderly with physical bodies afflicted by uneasing physical conditions.
The Buddha declared Channa, Vakkali and Godhika were all blameless &/or extinguished. They were blameless &/or extinguished because they did not cling to life as "self" nor did they long/crave for another life.
Whether or not they were Arahants is not relevant. What is relevant is there was no clinging.

Piya Tan provides a lengthy analysis for this topic in his commentary to Channovada Sutta (MN 144).
He says the traditional commentaries maintain that the monks who committed suicide were not arahants when they took their own life, but became arahants at their final moments.
On the other hand, other modern day translators and scholars opine that according to the literal wording of the Pali version of this sutta, it appears that Channa was indeed an arahant when he committed suicide.
Some argue that it may be possible for arahants to commit suicide to escape extreme physical suffering from severe incurable illness without experiencing mental aversion. Meanwhile, others argue that the first precept and the third parajika rule for monks do not allow the taking of a life, even one's own life, hence it is not possible for arahants to take their own life.
Despite the controversies surrounding this topic, Piya Tan ends the discussion fruitfully with these statements:

7.1 Buddhism is opposed to suicide for various reasons. In a footnote of his paper, “Buddhism and suicide: The case of Channa” (1996),
Damien Keown lists the following as some of the
reasons why Buddhism
might be opposed to suicide, which I list in full:
(1) It is an act of violence and thus contrary to the principle of
ahimsa [non-violence].
(2) It is against the first precept [against harming life].
(3) It is contrary to the third
pārājika [against a monk taking life]. (Cf Miln 195).
(4)  It is stated that “Arahants do not cut short their lives”
(na ca arahanto
apakkaṁ pātenti).  Miln 44; cf D 2:32 :: DA 810 cited in Horner
(Milinda’s Questions 1:61n). Sāriputta says that an arhat neither
wishes for death nor wishes not to die: it will come when it comes
(Tha 1002 f).
(5)  Suicide destroys something of great value in
the case of a virtuous human life and prevents such a person acting in
the service of others (Miln 195 f). Wiltshire states that altruism is
also cited in the Pāyāsi Sutta [D 23,12 f/2:330-332] as a reason for
not taking one’s life (1983:131). With reference to the discussion
here (D 2:330-332) he comments, “This is the  only passage in the
Sutta Pitaka in which the subject of suicide is considered in the
abstract, and even then obliquely” (1983:130). [Kumāra] Kassapa states
that the virtuous should not kill themselves to obtain the results of
their good karma as this deprives the world of their good influence (D
2:330 f).
(6)  Suicide brings life to a premature end. As
Poussin (1922) expresses it: “A man must live his allotted span of
life... To that effect Buddha [sic] employs to Pāyāsi the simile of
the woman who cuts opens here body in order to see whether her child
is a boy or a girl” [ie to let things take their natural course and
the practice of patience] (D 2:311).
(7)  Self-annihilation  is a form of vibhāva-tanhā
[craving for annihilation].
(8) Self-destruction is associated with ascetic practices which are
rejected since “Buddhism had better methods of crushing lust and
destroying sin” (Poussin 1922).
(9)  There is empirical
evidence provided by I Tsing [Yijing]. Poussin notes: “The pilgrim
I-tsing says that Indian Buddhists abstain from suicide and, in
general, from self-torture” (op cit).
(10)  As noted [in the
Chann’ovāda Sutta, M 144.6 below], Sāriputta’s immediate reaction is
to dissuade Channa, in the strongest terms from taking his life.
Sāriputta’s reaction suggests that suicide was not regarded among the
Buddhist senior disciples as an option even meriting discussion.
(Keown 1996:29 n55)
7.2 Suicide is clearly against the most basic of Buddhist values,
namely, that of life, as enshrined for  example in the very first
precept and the third pārājika Death is one of the fundamental
aspects of the  most basic level of suffering (dukkha,dukkha). The
first noble truth also implies that death is a problem, not a
solution. The cause of the problem lies is the second noble truth,
that is, craving (for life, bhava,tanhā, or for death,
vibhava,tanhā) and the solution is the giving up of the desire for both.

What is significant is that through the affirmation of death he has,
in his heart, embraced Māra.  From a Buddhist perspective, this is
clearly irrational. If suicide is irrational in this sense it can be
claimed there are objective grounds for regarding it as morally wrong.
(Keown 1996:31)

7.3 When discussing the question of suicide in early Buddhism,
especially in regards to the death of Channa, of
Godhika, and similar suicides, they should be seen as
a cultural phenomenon, and not as a
Buddhist doctrine. For it is evidently clear that
Buddhism does not
condone suicide, as clearly stated at  the beginning of this essay.
The deaths of Vakkali, Channa, Godhika and the unnamed 500 monks at
their own hands are personal decisions, even exceptional cases, and
not the rule.
Although Vakkali, Channa and Godhika die as saints,
their preceding state of mind that compels them to take their own
lives are not an awakened state. It is most important to understand
that this preceding  state of mind is not the cause of
their attaining
sainthood, although they are the preceding condition. It is like a
ripe fruit that is cut off with a picker’s knife, but neither the
knife nor the cutting is cause of the  ripening of the fruit. On
account of their spiritual cultivation, their last thought-moment is
clearly free from the unwholesome roots of greed, hate or delusion, so
that they die fully awakened and liberated.
7.4 In closing this brief but exciting examination
of the Buddhist attitude to life and death, we should
recall Sāriputta’s saintly statement in the Theragāthā:

I delight not in death, nor do I delight in life;
I shall cast aside this body fully aware and mindful.
I delight not in death, nor do I delight in life;
I await my time as a servant his wages.
(Tha 1002 f)

Piya Tan's commentary to Channovada Sutta (MN 144)

I want to add a simile
Suppose there is a fire burning high with flames and red hot iron at the base & coals.
A man desiring the fire to get extinguished one would throw a modicum amount of wet cow-dung on it such that the flame would go out but a new flame would arise when cow-dung had dried out.
Here desiring extinguishment one only added fuel to the burning. This is akin to a Sotapanna laying down the body desiring to escape suffering.
Suppose you have only a small residual fire burning and were to throw throw a lot of wet cow-dung on it such that it would become completely cooled.
This akin to an Arahant laying down the body to become extinguished.

Liberation means that we have freed ourselves, but freedom (in the sense used here) is a subtle and difficult concept.
Suicide is vexing because those who attempt suicide (generally speaking) are working from within deep attachments: shame, anxiety or fear, despondency, frustration, or any of the states that arise in us when deep-seated cravings go (seemingly perpetually) unsatisfied. In such cases the urge towards self-destruction is actually a call for radical change, and the best course for those who feel such an urge is to turn to the dharma and free themselves from the compulsions (and sufferings) of craving. That change goes in a direction the thinking mind can neither easily understand nor easily accept, of course, but it is the change that's needed.
However, someone who has achieved liberation isn't subject to these attachments. They are not suffering from an unrequited craving; they are not despondent because the world hasn't given them what they want; they do not act out of shame or fear, having left those qualities behind. Someone who has achieved liberation does not feel as though they have left anything undone, and while they could always do more, they recognize that there is a limit to what any human can do. Then this becomes a simple, matter-of-fact decision. Can we offer something of ourselves to others, or are we a drag on their (spiritual) lives? Do we spend our waking hours in joy, or is each passing moment clung to like the pained ticking of a decaying clock? There is the risk that the agony of protracted illness might cost us our equilibrium, pulling us back into the cycle of rebirth even at the edge of nirvana...
The time to leave this body comes to all of us. Most people fight it tooth and nail; some people rush into it in a frenzy. But someone who has achieved liberation is free to choose wisely.

It's very simple: killing human is a downfall transgression. Simple getting pc3 read and understood as found in Vinayas Vibanga, althought the story of origin is as well found in the Suttas where fools killed each other, called for, suggested, killed themself. No need to see them as part of those going well at all.


text:
Should one who follows the Dhamma give drugs to the dying to ease thier suffering?
My Christian wife is dying and the doctor has prescribed morphine and tranquilizers. She is losing her mind and the drugs may be contributing to that. I don't want her to suffer but I also don't want her mind to be in a bad state for rebirth. Is there any Buddhist scripture or comentary that could give guidance in this situation?

The First Noble Truth seems applicable and it leads to the Second.

This is not exactly "Buddhist scripture or commentary" but it's related -- What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care -- here's an extract but you might read it all:

Taking into consideration overall well-being
(including the mental state of the patient), nurses
must balance the level of pain relief needed against
the need for alertness in the dying Buddhist. Proper
pain management can be achieved with minimal disruption of alertness by the use of the WHO analgesic
ladder. The choice of non-opioid analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) and weak opioids
should be preferred over strong opioids and neurolytic
block therapy whenever possible, with the aim of reducing adverse side effects (i.e. sedation and cognitive
impairment), thus maintaining alertness of the individual so that effective spiritual practices may continue. However, if severe uncontrolled pain develops,
cognitive impairment (e.g. delirium) may result that
may require the use of strong opiods for effective
relief to achieve the best cognitive function possible
that would support meditative spiritual practices. In
concordance with good practice and recognizing that
the individual needs of each patient will differ,
nurses should continue to monitor the need for pain
relief, and should clearly document the preferences
of such patients with regard to pain relief, particularly
during initial patient assessment regardless of the
setting (patient’s own home, hospice, hospital).

I believe the "analgesic ladder" means, not prescribing more than needed, and, increasing the prescription over time (when the need/illness increases, and as the tolerance to the drug increases, tolerance making it less effective) -- additional details here: WHO Analgesic Ladder

For some patients I think that unmanaged pain and suffering itself, may cause a "mind to be in a bad state" -- for example delirious or suicidal.

This article -- Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill -- includes a lot of sutta references.
One of these is AN 5.124 which identifies qualities of a competent carer -- they include being able to prepare medicine and knowing what's suitable and unsuitable.

A patient with five qualities is easy to care for. What five? They do
what is suitable. They know moderation in what is suitable. They take
their medicine. Because their carer wants what’s best for them, they
accurately report their symptoms by saying when they’re getting worse,
getting better, or staying the same. And they can endure physical
pain—sharp, severe, acute, unpleasant, disagreeable, and
life-threatening. A patient with these five qualities is easy to care
for.”
AN 5.123

In my humble opinion, this answer does not seem to address the specific question posed by the OP about the caregiver's responsibility in administering drugs to a dying patient. Perhaps amendment of the above could more directly assist the OP? Best, Jim

I think it points to the need for moderation in medicine but as u said it doesn't address the q directly. It would imo best complement Chrisw's answer

I would agree & I up-voted that answer.

If they have bad side effects, then not. If they are helpful or beneficial, then go ahead and give them such medications.

All prescription drugs have bad side-effects, almost by definition -- i.e. that's why they are "by prescription only". A doctor is trained to assess whether the benefit is greater than the harm, when and how much to prescribe, what the alternatives are (and what the consequences are of each alternative), etc.


text:
After the Buddha's enlightenment, did he receive any teachings?
There's not much background to this question. Did the Buddha ever receive a teaching after his enlightenment; a teaching that he accepted and made use of, either his own or another - or perhaps a teaching from another being other than a human.
Please provide sutta references.
I'm asking because of this term commonly found near or at the end of suttas: 'the job has been done, there is nothing more for this world'
Another way to put it: can one be independent of the teachings? If not, what situations would call forth the remembering and practising of the teachings for an enlightened mind?
Thanks
ADDITIONAL EDIT:
In my quest to answer this question I had found a sutta in which the Buddha had asked Venerable Mahacunda to give him a teaching on the enlightenment factors. You can read it here.
Also, the second part of the question  is answered here which references this sutta here.

The answer to this question -- Reference request for “the Buddha takes the Dhamma as his superior” -- might be a partial answer to the questions in the last paragraph above.

@ChrisW - yes, it partially answers the question, but I found a sutta where the Buddha had asked one of his disciples for a teaching. It's very interesting to me! I'll update the question soon.

I found a sutta where the Buddha had asked one of his disciples for a teaching

Consider this

Then Ven. Sariputta addressed the monks: "Friend monks."
"Yes, friend," the monks responded to him.
Ven. Sariputta said: "All those who ask questions of another do so
from any one of five motivations. Which five?
"One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One
asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with
greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a
question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question
with this thought,[1] 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'
"All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of these
five motivations. And as for me, when I ask a question of another,
it's with this thought: 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].' - AN 5:165

He whose victory cannot be undone,whose victory no one here approaches, the Buddha, whose range is endless,by what path can you lead the pathless one? - Dhp

The Buddha, being fully enlightened and fully liberated, does not really need any new teachings for spiritual liberation from anyone, for his benefit.
However, he may ask his arahant disciples to provide teachings or elaboration for the benefit of the unenlightened.
An example of this is SN 12.31. It ends with:

“Good, good, Sāriputta!... (the Buddha repeats here the entire statement
of the Venerable Sāriputta) ... it is in such a way that the meaning of
this, stated in brief, should be understood in detail.”

Please also see this answer. The Buddha denied complete omniscience. He could potentially know and understand all things, but not all at the same time. He only possesses the full knowledge and understanding of spiritual liberation.
With regards to other types of knowledge, for e.g. of science, the Buddha possesses the intellectual capacity to understand them. So, the Buddha can still receive teachings unrelated to spiritual liberation from others.

46.16 says he asked Venerable Mahacunda for a teaching on the enlightenment factors. If he did it once, he must have done it before. Have I misinterpreted that sutta? Is there another meaning to it?

@NeuroMax The Buddha wanted Ven. Mahacunda to recite or express his understanding of the enlightenment factors, and then the Buddha, his teacher, approved his recitation or understanding. The Buddha did not learn anything new from Ven. Mahacunda.

I think one can go further than "does not really need any new teachings for spiritual liberation from anyone" to does not need any teachings at all. He is a Buddha, perfect in behavior & traditions of the Noble One's, he knows everything a Buddha needs to know because he is one and his ranges are limitless. It is said that he even opened up heaven's & hell for all to see ... i think that if someone was to teach a Buddha then the universe wouldn't be able to live with itself, is my conviction.

@Buddhism Please see this answer. The Buddha denied complete omniscience. He could potentially know and understand all things, but not all at the same time. He only possesses the full knowledge and understanding of spiritual liberation. With regards to other types of knowledge, for e.g. of science, the Buddha possesses the intellectual capacity to understand them. So, the Buddha can still receive teachings unrelated to spiritual liberation from others.

You are making a mistake saying that knowing & seeing things simultaneously is the same as having a capacity to understand. Mn90: Great king, I recall making this statement: ‘There is no ascetic or brahmin who knows all and sees all simultaneously: that is not possible.’”.  The Buddha can know & see all things heard, senses or cognized, he can also know the mind of another with his mind. Traditional Theravada holds that he can know anything he directs his mind to albeit not simultaneously. This notion of being capable to understand through instruction is kind of absurd.

The Blessed One said: “Monks, whatever in this world with its devas, Māras & Brahmās, in this generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its rulers & commonfolk, is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in this world with its devas, Māras & Brahmās, in this generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its rulers & commonfolk, is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. - AN 4:58

@Buddhism What about MN 71? -  “Sir, I have heard this: ‘The ascetic Gotama claims to be all-knowing and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception, thus: “Knowledge and vision are constantly and continually present to me, while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking.”’ I trust that those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and do not misrepresent him with an untruth? ...
“Vaccha, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.”

@Buddhism Continuing MN 71 - ‘The ascetic Gotama has the three knowledges.’ Answering like this you would repeat what I have said, and not misrepresent me with an untruth. You would explain in line with my teaching, and there would be no legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism.”

I do not say that Buddha knows everything knowing & seeing everything without exception. There is a difference between "everything can be be known" and "everything is known without exception". Therefore i think your followup excerpts are irrelevant as i did not assert that he knows & sees everything without exception.

Perhaps give an example of what he doesn't know or can't know having directed the mind to it, how to seclude information from someone who can read minds.

Not that i enjoy pestering you with this but i want to say that i think i understand why you see it otherwise. I guess it is because "knowing all" can be taken to mean understanding the workings of the perception of other beings, 'understanding' as direct seeing for an 4:58, basically taking the sutta definition from sabba sutta and applying it here to 'knowing all'.

There is this passage as well;
“Sir, I’m well-known as a charioteer skilled in a chariot’s parts. All the parts are well-known to me. The answer just appears to me on the spot.”
“In the same way, when clever aristocrats, brahmins, householders, or ascetics come to see me with a question already planned, the answer just appears to me on the spot. Why is that? Because the Realized One has clearly comprehended the principle of the teachings, so that the answer just appears to him on the spot.” https://suttacentral.net/mn58/en/sujato i think that this applies to anything a person might plan

As i see it there is a lot of evidence for Buddha basically being able to answer any question that can be posed to him and that about anything a person can think of. One could explain away the evidence but at some point one has to produce counter evidence as well.

Lord Buddha didn't receive any teachings after his Enlightenment. He spoke with various philosophers, however, and they told him many interesting things, but that doesn't count as "receiving teachings".


text:
Between Ana & Apana. What is the terminology for this moment?
Ana (Āna, Āṇā, incoming breath, inhale) & Apana (apāṇa, āpāna, outgoing breath, exhale), there is a moment between them. Or let's say the point switches from incoming breath to outgoing breath.
I can't remember the terminology for this switching point. I believe it exists in the Pali language.
Does anyone know it? Thank you.

Holding breath = assāsapassāse uparundhitvā
Breath's beginning-middle-ending = Assāsādimajjhapariyosānaṃ
You may use "Assasapassasanam antaram (in the middle of breath)", but it is "Holding breath" actually. It is abnormal for Anapanassati meditation.

Wow. Thank you. How do you divide Assāsādimajjhapariyosānaṃ into three words? I could not find from the web.

Use these to search in pali dictionary....  Assasa/Passasa=Breath in/out. ādi = beginning. majjha = middle. pariyosāna = ending.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/majjha Great! I found it. I think this is what I had heard before even though this script explains the middle of In-breath and middle of out-breath. My original question was the moment between in-breath AND out-breath. Maybe such a thing doesn't exist in Pali's text. If you find it, let me know!! After all, I am very happy. Thank you!

There's nothing like that because it is abnormal. Breathing is automatic system without attention. We can hold the breathing or stop breathing, but in normal situation breathing in/out is automatic continuously. You can use "antara" without quoting Pali, however it is weak mindfulness on breathing actually when we can see the space between breathing in/out. That's why we don't have the word to use.

Thank you for your opinion!

I am not familiar with this terminology.
Technically, speaking of 'a moment' only goes as far as the discernment of a beginning & an end.
If one can not discern a beginning & end then one can't talk about it in terms of temporality.
The conditioned changes as it persists and in as far as change is discerned one conceives of a before & after.

what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
arises as one thing and ceases as another. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html

“Sign, in-breath, out-breath, are not object Of a single
consciousness; By one who knows not these three things Development is
not obtained. Sign, in-breath, out-breath, are not object Of a single
consciousness; By one who does know these three things  Development
can be obtained” (Patis I 170)

Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, this is not answering my question. Let me know if you have any way to get the targeting Pali terminology!


text:
How Walking meditation happen
Without any thought automatically start the walking and it's last for 15 minutes. How it's related to meditation.

Can you add some more details? What lasts for 15 minutes? And what two things need to be related? Are you saying that during a walking meditation session, you were absent from thought for 15 minutes? You might also be asking how the walking meditation did this? Please add some more information so that you can encourage good quality answers.

There are four meditation postures: walking, standing, sitting and lying down. Walking is beneficial:

AN5.29:1.1: “Mendicants, there are five benefits of walking meditation.
AN5.29:1.3: You get fit for traveling, fit for striving in meditation, and healthy. What’s eaten, drunk, chewed, and tasted is properly digested. And immersion gained while walking lasts long.

And here are some challenges to overcome while walking:

AN4.11:1.1: “Mendicants, suppose a mendicant has a sensual, malicious, or cruel thought while walking.
AN4.11:1.2: They tolerate it and don’t give it up, get rid of it, eliminate it, and obliterate it.
AN4.11:1.3: Such a mendicant is said to be ‘not keen or prudent, always lazy, and lacking energy’ when walking.

Here are the details of walking:

MN91:9.34: These are the thirty-two marks of a great man possessed by Master Gotama.
MN91:10.1: When he’s walking he takes the first step with the right foot.
MN91:10.2: He doesn’t lift his foot too far or place it too near.
MN91:10.3: He doesn’t walk too slow or too fast.
MN91:10.4: He walks without knocking his knees or ankles together.
MN91:10.5: When he’s walking he keeps his thighs neither too straight nor too bent, neither too tight nor too loose.
MN91:10.6: When he walks, only the lower half of his body moves, and he walks effortlessly.
MN91:10.7: When he turns to look he does so with the whole body.
MN91:10.8: He doesn’t look directly up or down.
MN91:10.9: He doesn’t look all around while walking, but focuses a plough’s length in front. Beyond that he has unhindered knowledge and vision.

So he walks with his arms hanging motionless by his sides.  I've tried that, and it affects my balance. On the plus side, people in the street seem to form a curve around me.

Perhaps hands clasped works better: > Thag7.4:2.1: Arranging my robe over one shoulder

Thag7.4:2.2: and clasping my hands together,
Thag7.4:2.3: I walked alongside that stainless one,

In the west, wearing a bright yellow traffic vest seems to give everybody peaceful confidence as well.

Walking is a bodily posture, is tied to the body.
When one's attentiveness is fixed on the theme of the body then one is developing mindfulness of the body [kayagatasati] which is a healthy perception to entertain as it is distant from unwholesome themes that give rise to worry, lust, anger & delusion and this distancing results in seclusion & jhana.
Walking is fairly immersive and one should simply feel the thoughts & sensations as one is walking, perceiving beginning & the end as one would in inhaling & exhaling for Anapanasati which is likewise a bodily theme.
Another benefit to walking meditation is that walking stirs up energy, it is difficult to fall asleep whilst walking and it might wake up one beset by sleepiness.
The only thing you change is the posture, you can still relax or contemplate as you would otherwise.


text:
Where does 'contentment' fit in walking the path of Dhamma?
'Contentment' means being at ease with what you have and not desiring more. But, of course, if I am content with my present situation I will not strive towards Nirvana, and if I am not content and desire for more I invite suffering. Is 'contentment' described in any of the Buddhist scriptures? How to make use of it in the path towards
Nirvana?

The sutta SN 16.1 is about contentment.
From SN 16.1:

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, this Kassapa is content with any kind of robe,
and he speaks in praise of contentment with any kind of robe, and he
does not engage in a wrong search, in what is improper, for the sake
of a robe. If he does not get a robe he is not agitated, and if he
gets one he uses it without being tied to it, uninfatuated with it,
not blindly absorbed in it, seeing the danger in it, understanding the
escape.
“Bhikkhus, this Kassapa is content with any kind of almsfood … with
any kind of lodging … with any kind of medicinal requisites … and if
he gets them he uses them without being tied to them, uninfatuated
with them, not blindly absorbed in them, seeing the danger in them,
understanding the escape.
“Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will be
content with any kind of robe, and we will speak in praise of
contentment with any kind of robe, and we will not engage in a wrong
search, in what is improper, for the sake of a robe. If we do not get
a robe we will not be agitated, and if we get one we will use it
without being tied to it, uninfatuated with it, not blindly absorbed
in it, seeing the danger in it, understanding the escape.
“‘We will be content with any kind of almsfood … with any kind of
lodging … with any kind of medicinal requisites … and if we get them
we will use them without being tied to them, uninfatuated with them,
not blindly absorbed in them, seeing the danger in them, understanding
the escape.’ Thus should you train yourselves.
“Bhikkhus, I will exhort you by the example of Kassapa or one who is
similar to Kassapa. Being exhorted, you should practise accordingly.”

Also AN 6.114:

“Mendicants, there are these three things. What three? Lack of
contentment, lack of situational awareness, and having many wishes.
These are the three things. To give up these three things you should
develop three things. What three? You should develop contentment to
give up lack of contentment, situational awareness to give up lack of
situational awareness, and having few wishes to give up having many
wishes. These are the three things you should develop to give up those
three things.”

In my humble view, the factor of Right Effort might address this question: The Buddha doesn't say, "Don't make an effort, be content," but rather the Buddha says, "Make an effort towards the right things." In SN 45:8 the Buddha explains that there are four things that deserve a monk's effort:

And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. This, monks, is called right effort.

So as with many other things in the teachings, it seems to be more about asking oneself, "Will this lead to progress in the path?"
Metta.

One has to find contentment in striving.

Here and beyond he suffers. The wrong-doer suffers both ways. He suffers and is tormented to see his own depraved
behaviour.
Here and beyond he is glad. The doer of good is glad both ways. He is glad and rejoices to see his own good deeds - Dhp

Monks, there are these four modes
of practice. Which four? Painful practice with slow intuition, painful
practice with quick intuition, pleasant practice with slow intuition,
& pleasant practice with quick intuition.
"And which is painful practice with slow intuition? There is the case
where a monk remains focused on unattractiveness with regard to the
body, percipient of loathsomeness with regard to food, percipient of
non-delight with regard to the entire world, (and) focused on
inconstancy with regard to all fabrications. The perception of death
is well established within him. He dwells in dependence on the five
strengths of a learner — strength of conviction, strength of
conscience, strength of concern, strength of persistence, & strength
of discernment — but these five faculties of his — the faculty of
conviction, the faculty of persistence, the faculty of mindfulness,
the faculty of concentration, the faculty of discernment — appear
weakly. Because of their weakness, he attains only slowly the
immediacy [1] that leads to the ending of the effluents. This is
called painful practice with slow intuition.
"And which is painful practice with quick intuition? There is the case
where a monk remains focused on unattractiveness with regard to the
body, percipient of loathsomeness with regard to food, percipient of
non-delight with regard to the entire world, (and) focused on
inconstancy with regard to all fabrications. The perception of death
is well established within him. He dwells in dependence on these five
strengths of a learner — strength of conviction, strength of
conscience, strength of concern, strength of persistence, & strength
of discernment — and these five faculties of his — the faculty of
conviction, the faculty of persistence, the faculty of mindfulness,
the faculty of concentration, the faculty of discernment — appear
intensely. Because of their intensity, he attains quickly the
immediacy that leads to the ending of the effluents. This is called
painful practice with quick intuition.
"And which is pleasant practice with slow intuition? There is the case
where a monk — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from
unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture &
pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought &
evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he
enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of
concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought &
evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains
equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He
enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the noble ones declare,
'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning
of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of joy &
distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of
equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. He dwells in
dependence on these five strengths of a learner — strength of
conviction, strength of conscience, strength of concern, strength of
persistence, & strength of discernment — but these five faculties of
his — the faculty of conviction, the faculty of persistence, the
faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, the faculty of
discernment — appear weakly. Because of their weakness, he attains
only slowly the immediacy that leads to the ending of the effluents.
This is called pleasant practice with slow intuition. [2]
"And which is pleasant practice with quick intuition? There is the
case where a monk — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from
unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture &
pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought &
evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he
enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of
concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought &
evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains
equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He
enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the noble ones declare,
'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning
of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of joy &
distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of
equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. He dwells in
dependence on these five strengths of a learner — strength of
conviction, strength of conscience, strength of concern, strength of
persistence, & strength of discernment — and these five faculties of
his — the faculty of conviction, the faculty of persistence, the
faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, the faculty of
discernment — appear intensely. Because of their intensity, he attains
quickly the immediacy that leads to the ending of the effluents. This
is called pleasant practice with quick intuition.
"These are the four modes of practice. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.163.than.html

The Blessed One said, "And how,
Nandiya, does a disciple of the noble ones live heedlessly? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified
confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone,
an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings,
awakened, blessed.' Content with that verified confidence in the
Awakened One, he does not exert himself further in solitude by day or seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedlessly, there is no joy.
There being no joy, there is no rapture. There being no rapture, there is no serenity. There being no serenity, he dwells in pain. When pained, the mind does not become centered. When the mind is uncentered, phenomena do not become manifest. When phenomena are not manifest, he is reckoned simply as one who dwells heedlessly
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html

Contentment is among 10 suitable topics for conversation

"Endowed with five qualities, a monk pursuing mindfulness of breathing will in no long time penetrate the Unprovoked [release]. Which five?
...
"He gets to hear at will, easily & without difficulty, talk that is truly sobering & conducive to the opening of awareness: talk on modesty, contentment, seclusion, non-entanglement, arousing persistence, virtue, concentration, discernment, release, and the knowledge & vision of release. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.097.than.html

From dhp

Health is the supreme possession. Contentment is the supreme wealth. A trustworthy friend is the supreme relation.
Nirvana is the supreme happiness

It is good to have companions when occasion arises, and it is good to be contented with whatever comes. Merit is good at
the close of life, and the elimination of all suffering is good.

Restrained of hand, restrained of foot, restrained of speech and restrained in his highest faculty, with his joy turned
inwards, his mind still, alone and contented - that is what they call a bhikkhu

Whenever he meditates on the rise and fall of the constituent elements of existence, he experiences joy and rapture. It is
immortality for men of discrimination.
Therefore in this religion, this is what comes first for a wise
bhikkhu - guarding of the senses, contentment, and discipline in
accordance with the rules of the Order. He should cultivate friends of good character, of pure behaviour and resolute. He should be friendly in his manner, and well-behaved. As a result he will experience great joy, and put an end to suffering.

I'm not sure what the Pali word for "contentment" might be -- perhaps there are several, with different shades of meaning -- the first I heard of was sukha

Sukha (Sanskrit, Pali; Devanagari: सुख) means happiness, pleasure, ease, joy or bliss, in Sanskrit and Pali. Among the early scriptures, 'sukha' is set up as a contrast to 'preya' (प्रेय) meaning a transient pleasure, whereas the pleasure of 'sukha' has an authentic state happiness within a being that is lasting. In the Pāli Canon, the term is used in the context of describing laic pursuits, meditative absorptions, and intra-psychic phenomena.

If you search this site -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=sukha -- you'll find several related posts; including for example, What are the differences between joy (piti), bliss (sukha) and peace (santi) and how do the qualities relate to Nibbana?

At least one of these words -- pāmojja (translated "joy") -- is described as instrumental in Kimatthiyasutta (AN 11.1), which says that it's the purpose of "skillful ethics" and thence "having no regrets", and that in turns its purpose is rapture and thence tranquility (piti and passadi) and so on.
I asked a question related to that sutta, here -- What is the basis? -- with a nice answer.

I think of "content with little" as a description of an ideal or successful monk; but when I search for that phrase I find hardly any reference for it.
The sutta mentioned previously seemed to be based on or arising from "skilful ethics" -- not possessions -- not "what you have", but perhaps something more like, "what you do or don't do".

Your saying "walking the path" reminds me of this quote:

Achaan Chah just laughed and pointed out how much the monk was suffering by trying to judge others around him. Then he explained that his way of teaching is very simple: "It is as though I see people walking down a road I know well. To them the way may be unclear. I look up and see someone about to fall into a ditch on the right-hand side of the road, so I call out to him, 'Go left, go left' Similarly, if I see another person about to fall into a ditch on the left, I call out, 'Go right, go right!' That is the extent of my teaching. Whatever extreme you get caught in, whatever you get attached to, I say, 'Let go of that too.' Let go on the left, let go on the right. Come back to the center, and you will arrive at the true Dharma."

I think that "Middle Way", incidentally, implies "avoiding both extremes".
I doubt that means avoiding every extreme or effort, though -- if you're not steering towards a ditch on the left or the right, then perhaps (I don't know) you're free to progress forward in a semi-unrestrained way. This answer for example talks about billionaires -- and mentions Anathapindika.
Or from the Zen tradition there's the story of Publishing the Sutras -- which I find remarkable, both for the magnitude of the gifts, but also as examples of attachment or intention (dedication towards a goal) and of non-attachment (adapting to circumstance and letting go of wealth).

There's a sutta -- Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15) -- which addresses the apparent paradox of an intention to end desire.
The word for "arrived at the park" there is ārāmagatassa incidentally; I see "ārāma" as a synonym for "a (forest) monastery" and so more generally "seclusion" or "the monk's life", and "gata" of course as reminiscent of "Tathagata".
Also, on the subject of desire, Difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha)?

Another sutta -- An 2.5 -- specifically emphasises (continuing) Right Effort even over any contentment associated with skilful qualities:

Mendicants, I have learned these two things for myself—to never be content with skillful qualities, and to never stop trying.
I never stopped trying, thinking: ‘Gladly, let only skin, sinews, and bones remain! Let the flesh and blood waste away in my body! I will not stop trying until I have achieved what is possible by human strength, energy, and vigor.’
It was by diligence that I achieved awakening, and by diligence that I achieved the supreme sanctuary.


text:
Origin of the "Scorpion Story". (Your nature to sting, My nature is to save)
Purpose:
Find out the origin (reference) of this story.
Situation:
I got to know this Scorpion story from these websites.

Dare to the Motivation
The Nature of Things

The summary of this story is like this.
The scorpion stung the man but he saved the scorpion. Because even though to sting is the scorpion's nature, his nature to save won't change.
Problem:
Unfortunately, neither one have the reference to the story. It could be a fake story and I want to find out if it is a true Buddhism story or not.
I sent messages to both of the administrators. But I got no replies.
Comment
Does anyone know the original book of this story?
Thank you.

The closest story I could find to what you were describing is in the Ahina Sutta:

"On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now, at that time in Savatthi a certain monk had died after having been bitten by a snake. Then a large number of monks went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there they said to him, "Lord, just now in Savatthi a certain monk died after having been bitten by a snake.
...
May all creatures,
all breathing things,
all beings
— each & every one —
meet with good fortune.
May none of them come to any evil.
Limitless is the Buddha,
limitless the Dhamma,
limitless the Sangha.
There is a limit to creeping things:
snakes, scorpions, centipedes,
spiders, lizards, & rats."
...
(AN 4.67).

Other than this, I can find no other references in the Pali Canon similar to what you described.
-Apannaka

Thank you anyways!

The story means well, has some wisdom, but is also a bit confused. Listening to it, we might start trying to foolishly save scorpions with our bare hands and die for that.

AN8.74:2.4: A snake might bite me, or a scorpion or centipede might sting me.
AN8.74:2.5: And if I died from that it would stop my practice.

Although dying to save others is indeed better than ignoring others suffering...

AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.
AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.

...the best is to benefit all:

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

Please, in our compassion to save scorpions, know that scorpions are lethal. Do NOT get stung. Use a stick to help the dear creature escape.
Read the suttas directly. They are clear, helpful and not confused. And if a moving story leads us to the suttas, well, then that is also beautiful and fine.

Sorry, I was asking the origin of this story... Do you have any other ideas of the origin of this scorpion story?

I searched the Tipitaka on SuttaCentral and there is nothing comparable. That suggests strongly that the scorpion story happened AFTER the Buddha's time.  The other evidence of later origin is that the advice espoused is a bit misleading because it might cause us to react foolishly to dangers.  It's a nice story but I'm fairly certain the Buddha himself would not have told that story.

Yeah, I searched it too. I personally have different opinion about this story but it doesn't matter for this thread. Thank you anyways.