text:
Place of death and rebirth
I'm reading about bardos in the Tibetan Book of the dead. I'm wondering how is rebirth dependent on geographical location. For example, if dead occurs in Europe is it possible to get a rebirth in Asia? Is there any decision point for the deceased regarding parents or all happens depending only on past karma? Do we chose rebirth location and parents or not?

The exact place and circumstance of rebirth is an unconjecturable.

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
AN 4.77

I haven't read the book you're referring, but I'll answer based on Dharma Sermons I have heard.
When a person dies, the next life is determined vi a random pool of types. This Types pool contains every thought, action the person has attached. Think of this pool having various sentient life forms such as Human, Deva, Brahma, Cats, Dogs etc.
Those who have done a ton of Maithree (Metta) Meditation + achieved Dyanas (Jhana) has the potential to be born in Brahma Realms.
The universe is made up of 31 Realms. Bottom is the Hells. Top is Brahma Realms. Distance and geography between each of these Realms is huge and different. But the thoughts and actions of the person can land him a life as Brahma, Deva, Animal or a Hell being.
So based on that, a person who dies in Europe has the potential to be born in Asia. For that, he should has factors created for that Asian birth. If you wish to be born in Asia, you can perform good deeds such as donating food to Buddhist monks and then wish something like this,
→ By the power of this good deed, the infinite power of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha I wish for a human birth in Asia so that I can do X, Y, Z good deeds etc.
If you're trying to get an Asian Birth to follow Buddhism, please realize that you don't need an Asian Birth for that. You can follow Buddhism anywhere in the world.
Above wish is not guaranteed to get you whatever you want. BUT it'll happen whenever it happens. You're just putting your wish as a potential item in the queue/pool. Whether it gets selected or not is not something you can control or decide.
You can use the same strategy to wish for specific parents, but there is no guarantee it'll happen whenever you want.
Nope! Not everything occurs based only on Past Karma.
If your business fails, while that exact same business worked for someone else, why did that happen: → It's because of a Past Karma you have done coming back to you. Doesn't matter the logical reason it happened. That circumstance's root level reason is the Bad Karma you've created.
Now if you react this situation very angrily, you're creating new karma yourself. Your past karma only brought you failure. But your unawareness + anger caused you to create new karma.
Just like that, Not everything occurs based only on Past Karma. It may begin the circumstance, but it is not to blame for everything.
The person who is on the journey to become a Samma Sambuddha chooses his Birth Location, Parents and a couple of other things. BUT normal people like us cannot decide such things with 100% guarantee.
If you become Sowan (Sotapanna), then you'll be free from the 4 Hells forever. But that still doesn't mean you get to choose your birth location or parents.
All you can do is perform good deeds that burn your Raga (Lust), Dwesha (Anger) and Moha (Delusion) and then make a wish on that. There are cases on Tripitakaya how people wished for Beautiful Figure, Various Titles trillions of years ago and achieved exactly that. (e.g. Ambapali)
Hope this answers your questions!

Certain insecure which kind, good householder, not to speak about place, but Why beings take birth, even in most worse existences and circumstances? may give some ideas of the dangers of another birth. Good to seek the stream-enter therefore.
What ever would still ones desire at the moment of death, there one takes birth , when given, like good householder took here.


text:
Emptiness and consciousness
Does Buddha refer Consciousness as emptiness?
Consciousness, Emptiness and Self are the same things. Self can't exist independently hence it's an illusion. That is that which doesn't exist is identical to emptiness.

Your concept of consciousness seems hyped.
and also this sentence is completely wrong

Consciousness, Emptiness and Self are the same things

consciousness as per buddha is same as consciousness as per modern neuroscience. which is an neural phenomena.
when we are asleep there is no consciousness.  some says consciousness is sleeping. some say  basic consciousness exist. But its just playing with words.
Even Vijnana is one of the 5 aggregate and hence of impermanent nature. In fact it rises and fall every moment.
Self is a n mental construct or concept. so there is no need to explain it more.
However emptiness is real stuff we need to understand. There are various names in fashion now.

pure consciousness.
Luminous mind
absolute awareness.

There exist a lot of discussion on difference between awareness and consciousness. And it seems awareness is nothing but that primordial existence which was before consciousness rise and will be after it demises every moment.
The reason consciousness is different from awareness /emptiness is its name itself. consciousness. means conscious of something. the ability to discriminate mainly between observer and no object. whereas in primordial state there is no observer and there is no object. absolute non duality.

if there is no observer then what is it that confirms the existence of the object? I think instead there is an observer devoid of any content which turns onto itself, making observer the observed will be a more accurate phenomenal explanation of emptiness...probably that might go with pure consciousness..

Sorry.. Typing mistake.... In that primodial state there is no observer and there is no object. Only pure awareness free from all perception and concepts.  And what you said is also true and same.. Thevobserver beccomes the obserced... But thrn it also drops later.. There exist pure suchness.

cool...makes sense

Putting aside conventional notions of consciousness, emptiness and self, we can take a careful look at the Buddha's own precise definitions of these three terms:
The Buddha lays out seven planes of consciousness. Note that the seventh plane of consciousness is the dimension of nothingness (v.s. emptiness):

DN34:1.8.22: There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite space. Aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’, they have been reborn in the dimension of infinite consciousness.
DN34:1.8.23: This is the sixth plane of consciousness.
DN34:1.8.24: There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, they have been reborn in the dimension of nothingness.
DN34:1.8.25: This is the seventh plane of consciousness.

The Buddha discusses emptiness separately from the dimension of nothingness:

MN121:12.4: They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance.
MN121:12.5: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.

And the Buddha discusses self here:

MN62:3.2: “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”

Conflating the three is inadvisable. The suttas do not conflate them and are quite precise in their usage.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Two arrows in the domain of vedana
I am familiar with the simile of the two arrows, i.e. an unenlightened being experiencing physical pain (first arrow that hits) will grasp for the release from that pain and thus be hit by a second arrow. Since feelings are conditioned (anicca) like the body, there must be a "first arrow" made of feelings/vedana.  So i guess, even the buddha himself had to experience sadness. But there was no grasping towards the a different state of feeling. That also goes for painful mind objects like "the concept of your mother's death", which might give rise to suffering. In the past I thought that an arahant has to be free from bad feelings, but i guess now that this is not the case at all. This did not come out as a question, which this site is for. Anyways, what do you think?

A feeling like sadness would have to come from attachment to some sort of mental construct, right? Sadness does not come out of nowhere.
For example, a regular person might think: "my mother was around since the day I was born, how can it be that she is gone forever!?" Cycling this thought and various memories over and over he or she experiences a feeling of sadness.
Now, a Buddha is famously beyond conceptual boxes, their mind is not boxed. Because it's not boxed, how could something like sadness arise?
For example, if the Buddha's mother died, in Buddha's mind there's no circling of the idea "my mother is dead, this cannot be" etc. Buddha knows how in the stream of phenomena individual appearances arise, morph, and cease. Buddha knows that mothers and other sentient beings are born and die.
Rather than their deaths, what's important is whether their lives were meaningful in the grand scheme of things, or were they entirely consumed by the petty samsaric activities. If they were consumed by the petty samsaric activities, which are fruits of the previous karma of ignorance and are themselves the karmic seeds of future ignorance, that in the Buddha's mind is a reason to experience compassion and motivation to help all sentient beings move away from cycling in samsara and towards awakening and liberation.
In other words, the Buddha's mind is purified and likewise the Buddha's feelings are purified, too. Instead of sadness the Buddhas experience understanding and compassion.
That said, Buddha clearly appreciates the importance and value of relative relationships, so he/she would absolutely pay all the customary deep respects to the mother, both while she is alive and in connection with her death.
So, to answer your question, no, I don't think the "two arrows" concept applies to Buddha's emotions, I think it applies to physical feelings, where the first arrow obviously remains and the second arrow is gone.

The sutta clearly says that the two arrows refer to physical (kāyika) and mental (cetasika) feelings (vedana).
The educated noble disciple (ariyasāvaka) experiences painful physical feelings, but he doesn't "mentalize" it. Hence, he is struck only by painful physical feelings and not painful mental feelings.
That means, he is struck by one arrow and not two, unlike the uneducated ordinary person (puthujjana), who is struck by both arrows.

When an educated noble disciple experiences painful physical feelings
they don’t sorrow or wail or lament, beating their breast and falling
into confusion.
Sutavā ca kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako dukkhāya
vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno na socati, na kilamati, na paridevati, na
urattāḷiṁ kandati, na sammohaṁ āpajjati.
They experience one feeling:
So ekaṁ vedanaṁ vedayati
— physical, not mental.
kāyikaṁ, na cetasikaṁ.
It’s like a person who is struck with an arrow,
Seyyathāpi,
bhikkhave, purisaṁ sallena vijjheyya.
but was not struck with a second arrow.
Tamenaṁ dutiyena sallena
anuvedhaṁ na vijjheyya.
That person would experience the feeling of one arrow.
Evañhi so,
bhikkhave, puriso ekasallena vedanaṁ vedayati.
SN 36.6

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


text:
Did Buddha die of Bloody diarrhea?
As the title, Buddha died of Bloody diarrhea? Because it is confusing that Buddha died in cancer here but I cannot manage to find any source. The only reference I found is Mahāparinibbānasutta and it does not specify that any cancer or cancer related disease in pali text. And Buddha clearly mentioned that the last deadly cause was not because of last meal (neither pork nor mushroom) in that sutta.

Where did you get the idea of the Buddha suffering from cancer?

@ruben2020 The OP references this comment which says that it's a rumour.

Birth is always the cause of death, good householder. That's the teaching of the Sublime Buddha. What ever compound comes into being is subject to decay.

The pork of the last meal was indeed deadly:

DN16:4.19.3: I don’t see anyone in this world—with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans—who could properly digest it except for the Realized One.”

But, the Buddha surrendered the life force before he ate the last meal:

DN16:3.37.4: So today, just now at the Cāpāla tree shrine, mindful and aware, I surrendered the life force.”

Notably, before the Buddha surrendered the life force, he gave Ananda a remarkable opportunity:

DN16:3.3.2: The Realized One has developed and cultivated the four bases of psychic power, made them a vehicle and a basis, kept them up, consolidated them, and properly implemented them. If he wished, the Realized One could live on for the eon or what’s left of the eon.”

However, once the life force was surrendered, that opportunity vanished:

DN16:3.40.8: If you had begged me, I would have refused you twice, but consented on the third time.
DN16:3.40.9: Therefore, Ānanda, the misdeed is yours alone, the mistake is yours alone.

Here, the pivotal event is surrendering the life force, not the meal. This may sound strange, but it is a fact that people tend to die on specific days (i.e., close to their birthday). Cancer cells don't really care about birthdays, so something else is involved. Let's just call it "the life force".
So, although the pork was deadly, the life force was surrendered before the meal.

Why does this matter to you? If this question is based in some attraction to lurid information, it's not really consistent with Buddhist practice. Would Buddhist teachings be 'better' if we discovered that the Buddha had been (say) eaten alive by wild hyenas, or drowned in a river, or tossed out a window by an angry king, or just died peacefully in his sleep? Would that change his teaching, or the practice, or anything else?
An unfocused mind is easily distracted by bright and vulgar thoughts. Don't worry about the thought, but recognize the distraction for what it is.

This does not answer the question at all.
But for you question, for me at least, why I'm reading this, is curiosity. I'm always happy to learn something about Buddha. Is this really so bad?
Basically, I agree with your last sentence, but between first and last sentence it sounds rather speculative and insinuating to me. How do you arrive at such conclusions from only this question?

@AleGra: Well... I think you'll agree with me that the question is a tabloid question. We can go to a supermarket checkout stand and discover all sorts of curious and interesting factoids about royals and celebrities; that scratches a particular and peculiar mental itch. But it doesn't tell us anything useful or important about them or their work in life. It just make us feel better about ourselves. If you want to treat Buddha like a celebrity or a royal, I suppose that's your business, but it won't get you anything but a fleeting sense of macabre satisfaction.

@AleGra: As a rule, I don't feel committed to giving people the answer they want. I give people the answer I think is best, and in this case the best response is to draw attention back to what's meaningful and important. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy...

Actually, this question led me to discover the Mahāparinibbānasutta and I will keep going back to it, as there's massive teachings inside. I think calling it a tabloid question is exaggerating, and I still fail to see a direct connection to vulgar thoughts and gossip magazine stands.
I see interest in the question, and consider curiosity a good thing, as it drives us to want to learn more.
And I see a new guy, asking the first question, receiving a harsh answer.

Your answer would be appropriate in a certain context, to the right person at the right time, and maybe you're even right with your assumptions and this is the context. But I'm not as convinced of either this or that as you seem to be.
Of course you have all right to give answers as you please and the way you like. Sorry if I gave you the impression that I questioned that.

@AleGra: I'm not concerned that you might question anything I say. I'm concerned that you're going to lead yourself (and others) in entirely the wrong direction. It's nice that the question led you to the Mahāparinibbānasutta, because that's potentially enlightening. But trying to diagnose the cause of Gautama's death (particularly with reference grammar-school ticklers like 'bloody diarrhea') leads to excited speculation without much merit. It's not right speech; it's not right mindfulness; I sincerely doubt it fits with right understanding.

@AleGra: While I'm not a stickler for the monastic restrictions of the eight-fold path, they are good orienting principles, and ignoring them too blithely can be profoundly disorienting.

All you say would be true and appropriate in a different context. But I still can't see how this specific question would necessarily lead to speculation. On the contrary, sources are requested to clarify the facts for a rumor from a speculative comment.
I'm sure this isn't your intention, but your way could scare people off. My former self would have been discouraged by such an answer to a first question, possibly making it the last one.

Answers vs Advice

@AleGra: All I can do is ask you to respect the distinction between idle gossip and useful information. Nothing about the cause of Buddha's death — even a truthful, factual recounting of it, if one were available — falls into the latter category. But I can't get you to see what you don't wish to see, so we should leave it here.

@ChrisW: I partially disagree. if a man orders a poison-laced dessert for the table, it behooves us all to point out that's what he's doing. if anyone still wants to eat it, that's their business, so long as they are doing it with open eyes. How else are they supposed to later understand what went wrong?


text:
How to politely pursuade a lay person/Bhante to wear a mask?
To wear a mask in the covid pandemic is not a precept in Buddhism. I noticed many lay person and even many high level monks not wearing mask when talking to a stranger.
Q1) How do i politely persuade them to wear a mask ? Bhante said since i already double masked with a face shield then Bhante not require to wear mask. Some Bhante will say can we move from outdoor to indoor so nobody noticed we're not wearing mask and no police catching. Indoor infectivity rate is about 20 times higher. I am trying to have conversation with Bhante at outdoor to reduce the infectivity rate.
Q2)  I am thinking always keep extra high quality mask to offer to someone or Bhante when i need to talk to them. How if they refuse to wear it then what should i do?
Q3) In Buddhism, precepts are so difficult to practice but can follow, vice versa i don't understand why simple SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) or simple wisdom and compassion cannot do like a wearing mask. Isn't Buddhism fundamental is a path of wisdom and compassion with good deed for well being even not written in any Sutta ? Isn't not wearing a mask may against the precept #1 in Buddhism yet cause and effect may multiples to a billion people in very short period of time? Cause of infection found very frequent and high at Temple/Church/Mosque.

Maybe say that you watched too much TV and now seeing people not do as the TV says makes you anxious.

In general it might be polite to phrase it as an "I" message -- like, "I heard [explanation about wearing masks]" -- instead of as a "you" message, like, "You ought to wear a mask because X".
A lot of suttas begin this way: "Thus I heard."
As well as avoiding accusation ("You're wrong!"), that focus helps to keep the topic fact-based -- e.g. you really did hear such-and-such, and you're relaying what you heard. Narrating a message as you yourself originally received it might be better than narrating your understanding or interpretation of the topic. And you're not commenting on whether what you heard is true, only that you heard it, and where you heard it from and so on, so the other person has the same "input" as you and can (or may not) come to the same conclusion as you did.
Another tip for being respectful of the other's opinion might be to phrase what you say as a question. "Given that I heard these things about masks, how should I act? How should we (you and I) act?" -- and maybe, "Is there something I can do to help?" Or, "Is there any monastic policy, can you tell me, to avoid catching and spreading Covid in these times?"
You might also review Right speech -- "spoken affectionately", "spoken at the right time", and so on.
Generally I don't think it's my job to persuade other people to act as I do. And one of the most highly-upvoted rules of this site says,

In general, unless you actually are the questioner's teacher, don't assume a teacher's mantle.

Generally I don't think it's my job to persuade other people to act as I do--> guess to protect yourself also like offer someone a mask especially stranger that you need to talk to?

I don't know, perhaps that would be appropriate, if not to any stranger then at least to a monk who can't be assumed to have any possessions such as that unless they are offered -- that was in my mind behind a question like, "Is there something I can do to help?" -- I'm not sure which is more polite, i.e. a direct offer of something specific (a mask), or a more general offer/invitation to ask. I think politeness i.e. the vinaya prevents a monk from asking for something unless you, first, offer it or invite them to ask.

I'm not sure that's to "protect myself", however, perhaps that could be to help them if they desire to have a mask in order to protect others. I haven't been in exactly your situation but perhaps we can already protect ourselves -- by keeping polite distance when talking, and by remaining outside (in the fresh air), or only entering enclosed public spaces if they're very well-ventilated or where people wear masks, and by being vaccinated.

hospital is full. People are very tense. Well, me move to outskirt till this covid thing ease. No or minimal covid there. People higher compassionate there n surrounding with nature like a total different world. See this Pastor, he has a lot of supporter n guess me better dont bother them  https://youtu.be/WRdxwu_Z99Y

I know there are "populists" in the States pushing anti-mask messages -- and as you showed they are reported on news channels. Given how "social media" works -- https://www.google.com/search?q=social+media+outrage+echo+chamber&oq=social+media+outrage+echo+chamber -- perhaps you need to be careful not to get too upset about it.

I experienced myself when talking to Bhante. Bhante didnt wear a mask. We are discussing about covid issue so I feel so confuse. Well, I just move to outskirt first while improving my patience, hv some peace n safety purposes. Fear does matter cause hospital not available here. Hope no more this kinda covid wave =="

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Well, all you can do, really, is remind the person in question that it is against Buddhist precepts to take a life, and that this is as true of acts of omission as it is of acts of violence. At the very least, it will open an interesting philosophical debate. Monastics are likely not overly concerned with the state of the physical body, but people who attend then are still caught in that ignorance. Monastics ought to respect that.
Carrying extra masks is a fine, compassionate idea. Some will take them, some won't. Those who don't have a desire they are not willing to address, and may not even understand, so show them compassion.
If someone refuses to wear a mask, they refuse. Remember that the goal of buddhists isn't to put an end to disease; the goal is to put an end to ignorance and its karmic manifestations. Don't allow their refusal to become grounds for increasing ignorance; don't allow it to disturb your own equanimity. They are fighting against something illusory, and you don't want to get drawn into that world.

I'm just curious where in the vinaya it states that acts of omission are acts of violence?

@000: I didn't say that acts of omission n are acts of violence. I said that the proscription against taking life applies as much to acts of o mission as to acts of violence.

@000 it's invisible violence. dad been almost 2 months at hospital for covid. He still not understand what was his problem. I thinking now how to cover the medication cost. i.e. of violence? when i fetched him to hospital, he shouted in the car for something not important and covid all over inside car. I did keep remind him to keep silence for many times or only talk if emergency

Not to quibble, but that's your opinion.  In no Buddhist scripture does the proscription against taking life apply to acts of omission.  In fact, the intentionality of the act determines its karmic consequences.  Only if the monk was not wearing his mask for the explicit reason of giving someone else COVID, and if that person died, would he be breaking the first precept.

To put this another way, if someone was about to be hit by a truck and you didn't dive in to save them, I wouldn't consider you guilty of murder for your decision not to save that person.  That act of omission does not make you culpable.

@000: Hm. Well, this isn't moot court, and we can't 'lawyer' karma away. 'Culpability' is dukkha. Buddhist practice may not teach us to be action heroes, but it does suggest we see past ignorance and develop compassion. If someone is going to be crushed by a slow-moving truck, don't you think a word of warning would be nice? Or should we shrug and walk away, or pull out our iPhone so that we can document we weren't in any way 'culpable' for his demise?

@000: I'm sure people have their reasons for not wearing a mask: it's uncomfortable and annoying; they have an image to maintain; they're strong and healthy so it seems irrelevant; they rely on faith, not medicine... But all those reasons merely feed the ego and submerge one further in the karmic world. Wearing a mask might save someone needless suffering, and it doesn't no harm except to our pride. Where is the issue?

Where are you getting the impression that there is some willful reason on the part of the monk or lay person in this question?  The question reads "I noticed many lay person and even many high level monks not wearing mask when talking to a stranger."  Maybe they forgot?  Maybe they simply fell back on their prepandemic habits?  Maybe they left their mask in the car?  My point isn't legalistic, it's simply pointing out that without volition, no one is morally or karmically culpable.

@user20272: I don't have that impression; what makes you think I do? Karma isn't tantamount to sin (i.e., it doesn't depend on conscious volition), and it isn't personal. If someone suffers harm, they suffer harm; that karmic movement exists. if one abates the harm, one abates the karma. One who is aware that the potential for harm exists should take proper cautions and preventative steps.

Ted, man.  What the heck are you talking about??  Karma is personal and is almost exclusively dependent on cetana (i.e. volition).  This is like Buddhism 101.  By your definition, my disabled brother is guilty of killing my chicken because he thought he could ride it like a horse.  He harmed the chicken.  No doubt about that.  But no karma was generated because in his mind, chickens are no different than horses.  I mean they both live on farms, don't they?  Why wouldn't you be able to ride it?

And your last sentence "one who is aware the potential harm exits" connotes that you do believe that there is something willful about their decision not to wear a mask.  You're saying that they do know something but that they are acting contrary to that knowledge.  In other words, you are presupposing volition.  My position is that most people aren't twirling their mustache plotting monstrosities when they aren't wearing masks.  Most are either not thinking, don't sense the immediacy of the danger, or simply forgot.  None of those produces karma as all three lack the element of cetana.

"Cetana, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and mind." AN 6.63

@000: I'm trying to point at something, but you seem to keep looking at something else. It's a difficulty. Let's try this (from logic):  all intending is karma does not imply that all karma is intending. You speak as though you think karma inheres in a self, but you and I both know that the notion of 'self' is a misunderstanding or misperception.So where does karma really lie? What you say is appropriate for someone not yet a stream-enterer, sure. But is that the level we're talking on?

@000: Someone who forgets a mask may not be intending to cause harm, but lacks 'right effort' and 'right mindfulness'. Such a person is neglectful, or forgetful, or perhaps lazy; who knows? All we know is that he/she is not wholly committed to compassion. And what do we say of someone who is reminded to wear a mask, yet chooses not to do so? Isn't that act of omission intentional?

@000: In your family example I don't see any reason to 'blame' your brother for the death of the chicken. I don't think I'd 'blame' your brother if he sat on and unknowingly killed another child. I don't see the value of blame. But something died, and that has karma attached.

@user20272 To put this another way, if someone was about to be hit by a truck and you didn't dive in to save them. It's totally different story. In my country, if someone didnt/forgot wear a mask, been recorded and created a huge covid cluster then it's a serious offense. Fine 2k USD or Jail 6 months or both.

look at this. Is it look like serious violence of act ? She is been charged - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzmXZLcpmHo

Nobody forces one to be next someone or something one doesn't like. So what's the real problem? It's to assume that the monk wouldn't run after good little RED, and his reasons are his.
It seems that good householder forgets that demanding is always caused by wrong view, lacks of metta and path as whole. Right?

persuading is a wrong view? not wearing a mask is an offense in many countries, my country could lead to a 6 months jail ?

mum is very old and blur. Always not wearing mask, then she will say, Bhante not wearing then why should i?

The monastic rules of the Vinaya has rules pertaining to food, lodging, medicine, conduct etc. There are rules pertaining to medical care. The Buddha ate, slept, wore robes, took medicine when he was ill etc.
The Middle Way of the Buddha avoids both extreme indulgence and extreme asceticism. It includes moderation in food, healthcare and living. To neglect healthcare is to go against the Middle Way of moderation.
From Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Vinaya, the Buddha taught:

"A sick person endowed with five qualities is hard to tend to: he does
what is not amenable to his cure; he does not know the proper amount
in things amenable to his cure; he does not take his medicine; he does
not tell his symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse
desiring his welfare, saying that they are worse when they are worse,
improving when they are improving, or remaining the same when they are
remaining the same; and he is not the type who can endure bodily
feelings that are painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent,
disagreeable, life-threatening. A sick person endowed with these five
qualities is hard to tend to.
"A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does
what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things
amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as
they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying
that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are
improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and
he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful,
fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A
sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.

Based on this Vinaya quote, I would say that the Buddha himself would have wanted his followers to practice moderation, and accept the advice of healthcare professionals and the government when dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Also, spreading misinformation about Covid-19, masks and vaccines is against the fourth precept of not speaking falsehood.
Wearing a surgical mask is more for the wearer to avoid spreading pathogens to others, than for the wearer's own protection from contracting an infectious disease. As such, wearing a mask with the explicit intention of reducing others' suffering, is also an expression of compassion (karuna).
The quote from DN 26 below, also shows that the Buddha did not promote anarchy. He stated that the wheel-turning monarch should provide just protection and security to his subjects and also care for their welfare.

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court,
troops, aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of
town and country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let
injustice prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the
realm.

I would even say that a responsible Buddhist should support his or her government and follow its advice, if the government is discernibly doing the right thing, and if its advice is in accordance with the five precepts, Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood. For e.g. conscription into military service is against Right Livelihood.
You can use these arguments to politely persuade monks and lay Buddhists.

this is quite a big issue as the leaders not following simple rule and basic precepts with their own thoughts as not written in the Sutta/Quran/Bible.

Once upon a time, monks, a bamboo acrobat,
setting himself upon his bamboo pole,
addressed his assistant Medakathalika:
"Come you, my dear Medakathalika,
and climbing up the bamboo pole,
stand upon my shoulders."
"Okay, master" the assistant Medakathalika
replied to the bamboo acrobat;
and climbing up the bamboo pole
she stood on the master's shoulders.
So then the bamboo acrobat said this to his assistant Medakathalika:
"You look after me, my dear Medakathalika, and I'll look after you.
Thus with us looking after one another, guarding one another,
we'll show off our craft, receive some payment,
and safely climb down the bamboo pole."
This being said, the assistant Medakathalika said this to the bamboo acrobat:
"That will not do at all, master!
You look after yourself, master, and I will look after myself.
Thus with each of us looking after ourselves, guarding ourselves,
we'll show off our craft, receive some payment,
and safely climb down from the bamboo pole.
That's the right way to do it!"

This is the teaching of the Buddha. You wear your mask, and let the others take care of theirs. No need to fix them.

https://www.facebook.com/HPDPMalta/photos/-how-effective-are-face-masks-wearamask-staysafe/3516128141754301/ after a session with Bhante, there is a possibility my cloth, my hair, my shirt all covered with covid. So, i gotta avoid face to face with Bhante.

mum is very old and blur. Always not wearing mask, then she will say, Bhante not wearing then why should i?

One isn't either forced nor asked to seek refuge in the Gems, yet monks would offend if teaching to those who have no respect and if one's wearing a cover that would be a outer sign of no respect and actually not seeking refuge, still to little and RED (sign of greed, anger, strong attachments to views and world: marxist/materialist) and yes, actually not proper to wear things similar like householder.
One is free to seek refuge elsewhere and even avoid the Gems.
Yet, of course, aging, sickness, death can not be overcome by else then the Noble Path. Gross the pandemic of wrong view, ingratitude, demand....

user22118 @user22117 guess these two are same person


text:
Right Channel to esclate Buddhism rules and regulation matters
Where is the right channel to escalate or feedback the Buddhism matters via email writing ? I am thinking write to The World Fellowship of Buddhists (The WFB) via email.

I'm sorry, this seems to be a question about covid masks, not about Buddhist teaching and practice.

@Andrei Volkov edited

well, this is still not about teaching or practice, but I did reopen it

@Andrei Volkov Thanks Andrei, me recently visited many charity clubs and monasteries to help out poor dad that badly infected with Covid. Many not wearing mask and have their own thoughts. I m confuse how they can help me while the simple thing that they dont follow about this Covid.

So far as I know there's little or no world-wide "command structure" of Buddhists -- you can't write to one person and expect they'll pass a new edict that every Buddhist organisation will follow.
I'd guess that writing to "the WFB" is a bit like writing to the United Nations, i.e. unlikely to be effective.
It may be more effective to contact the specific organisations whose behaviour or whose publications you want to comment on -- i.e. the "charity clubs" and so on -- or to converse in person with people who are members of those organisations.
There may be some local organisations -- e.g. an abbot who heads a monastery; a senior reverend teacher within a school; perhaps even some national organisation (within a country).

The Sangha isn't a social service and not part of common communities. And such institutions like mentioned, are 'illegal fakes'. One accumulates much demerits in thinking wishing to own and control the Buddhas heritage. RED (delusion) was many times in history already pain for many, foremost themselves. What if reminding that being still subject to aging, sickness, death, aparting from beloved and only owner and heirs of his actions, good, or bad?

i sent a polite email to them as feedback. 2ndly. where is the proof as  'illegal fakes'. ?It's quite big organization and i had visited them many times. Nothing i seen as  'illegal fakes'. neither from the internet feedback.

TQ for your kind feedback by the way

There is only one Buddhas organisation, and this is his Sangha of monks. Else is called thief, copy, fake.

They have sangha. Please continue at the chat room for further discussion


text:
Does the aggregate of consciousness depend on the aggregates of sensation, perception and mental formations?
I'm reading the book What the Buddha Taught. In the section The Five Aggregates of Chapter II: The Four Noble Truths, when discussing the relationship between the aggregate of consciousness and other four aggregates, the author said:

The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, and that it cannot exist independently of them. He says:
‘Consciousness may exist having matter as its means (rūpupāyaṃ), matter as its object (rūpārammaṇaṃ), matter as its support (rūpa-patiṭṭhaṃ), and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop; or consciousness may exist having sensation as its means . . . or perception as its means . . . or mental formations as its means, mental formations as its object, mental formations as its support, and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop.
‘Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist.’ (S III (PTS), p. 58)

First of all, can you help me locate the corresponding sutra as quoted by the author? As I googled the quoted text and browsed a part of Saṁyutta Nikāya on the dhammatalks but couldn't find it. I don't have a copy of Pali Text Society's Saṁyutta Nikāya at hand.
Now as I understand it (correct me if I were wrong), the consciousness (as in viññāṇa) is like a sort of bare awareness, awareness of the presence of an object. If there were no light and eyes, there wouldn't be eye awareness of the light. So we can say the aggregate of consciousness depends on the matter. The consciousness arises out of the condition that there's a sense and a corresponding sense organ (both of which are matter).
But I think sensation, perception and mental formations all happen with the consciousness (bare awareness) as a precondition. Especially for perception (sanna) which is to recognize the object specifically, shouldn't that be based on bare awareness?
So my question, does the aggregate of consciousness depend on the aggregates of sensation, perception and mental formations? If so, why?

"Rūpupayaṁ" is found in at least four suttas that describe what supports consciousness.

SN22.53:1.3: Rūpupayaṁ vā, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṁ tiṭṭhamānaṁ tiṭṭheyya, rūpārammaṇaṁ rūpappatiṭṭhaṁ nandūpasecanaṁ vuddhiṁ virūḷhiṁ vepullaṁ āpajjeyya.
SN22.53:1.3: As long as consciousness remains, it would remain involved with form, supported by form, founded on form. And with a sprinkle of relishing, it would grow, increase, and mature.
SN22.54:2.1: Rūpupayaṁ, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṁ tiṭṭhamānaṁ tiṭṭheyya, rūpārammaṇaṁ
rūpappatiṭṭhaṁ nandūpasecanaṁ vuddhiṁ virūḷhiṁ vepullaṁ āpajjeyya.
SN22.54:2.1: As long as consciousness remains, it would remain involved with form, supported by form, grounded on form. And with a sprinkle of relishing, it would grow, increase, and mature.
SN22.55:11.4: Rūpupayaṁ vā, bhikkhu, viññāṇaṁ tiṭṭhamānaṁ tiṭṭheyya, rūpārammaṇaṁ rūpappatiṭṭhaṁ nandūpasecanaṁ vuddhiṁ virūḷhiṁ vepullaṁ āpajjeyya.
SN22.55:11.4: As long as consciousness remains, it would remain involved with form, supported by form, founded on form. And with a sprinkle of relishing, it would grow, increase, and mature.
DN33:1.11.123: Rūpūpāyaṁ vā, āvuso, viññāṇaṁ tiṭṭhamānaṁ tiṭṭhati rūpārammaṇaṁ rūpappatiṭṭhaṁ nandūpasecanaṁ vuddhiṁ virūḷhiṁ vepullaṁ āpajjati;
DN33:1.11.123: As long as consciousness remains, it remains involved with form, supported by form, founded on form. And with a sprinkle of relishing, it grows, increases, and matures.

Consciousness is quite affected by identity view:

MN18:16.6: Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and thoughts. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to thoughts known by the mind in the past, future, and present.

Consciousness and form are recursive aggregates.

DN15:2.16: If they say, ‘What is a condition for name and form?’ you should answer, ‘Consciousness is a condition for name and form.’
...
DN15:2.18: If they say, ‘What is a condition for consciousness?’ you should answer, ‘Name and form are conditions for consciousness.’

Recursive aggregates build on each other. Our feeling and perception of chocolate leads to a proliferation of choices for chocolate. Unfortunately, identification creeps into all these aggregates (e.g., my favorite 77% chocolate), leading to the muddy suffering of identity view, which is concerned with continued existence, craving, grasping and all that mess of suffering. That "self-conditioning" is quite deep, slippery and stubborn.

SN55.28:4.5: Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are a condition for the six sense fields. The six sense fields are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition that gives rise to old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.

So consciousness grows because of identity view. And is relinquished with identity view.

SN55.28:4.7: When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease. When name and form cease, the six sense fields cease. When the six sense fields cease, contact ceases. When contact ceases, feeling ceases. When feeling ceases, craving ceases. When craving ceases, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease.

Please note that the word "consciousness" is used very precisely in the suttas and we have to attend carefully to escape the constantly drifting meanings of conventional language. To use the raft, we have to step off the shore.

Thanks for providing sutra sources which answered my first question. I've read all sutras that you've linked. Pardon me for any possible negligence or misinterpretations, it seems to me in the first 4 sutras, the Buddha simply claims that consciousness is supported by form, feeling, perception and choices, without giving any explanation why it is so.

And it seems to me, for the last (MN18:16.6) sutra you quoted, what it actually says is (mind) consciousness depends on form (mind and thoughts), which leads to contact, which leads to feeling, which leads to perception, which leads to choices, which finally leads to identity view. So in summary it's consciousness -> identity view, not the other way around as you suggested. So I think it doesn't answer my main question as to why consciousness depends on the other 3 aggregates (feeling, perception and choices).

Thanks for the clear feedback. The answer now has additional quotes that may be of assistance.

Thanks for the addition. I think I understand now, but not sure about it. So I came up with an example reusing your chocolate one: 'I' like chocolate, so 'I' buy more chocolate (choice). Then 'my' home becomes more stuffed with chocolate (more form). And the eye consciousness is likely to be more frequently activated by all chocolates around me. So in this example the choice enforced form and consciousness, and this contact drives a new cycle onto other aggregates. Have this example illustrated the choice -> consciousness direction?

My closet is full of chocolate, so yes, that works for me as well. Happy studying suttas!

Consciousness is NOT an artifact of identity view.

@Dhammadatu, please show me the teaching that says it s not. I would learn. Thank you.
SN55.28:4.7: When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases....

"Ceases" means "ignorance tainting consciousness ceases". The very SN 22.53 u cited itself makes this clear. For more clear explanation, try SN 22.5. Regards

Oh dear, you are quite right. Thank you! Edited answer.

Udana Sutta: Exclamation & Parivatta Sutta: The (Fourfold) Round
In other words, no object (food) of what ever form, then there's no "roleplay". Impaired.

Thanks for sutra sources. If you are saying that consciousness depends on form/matter (and vice versa), then this is what I already understand. My question is about why consciousness depends on feeling, perception and mental formations.

The words of the Buddha already explain the important part. As for the comment: some modified the answer... As for depending on 'other' then form, thoughts ... are the minds objects (rupa). The mind-door has also it's 'rupas'.

That's why there are also 'arupa' realms of existence and why cutting away eye, ear, nose... wouldn't be an escape.

Much release by 'simply' looking for your self, good householder, yet important to start with kāyagatāsati.


text:
How do you know which mantra suits you the most?
I've been practicing mantra for quite a while now & received empowerments for a few. The main ones that I practice are Guru Rinpoche, White Tara, Vajrasattva 100-syllable. I take care not to go for those which require extensive samaya so that I don't break vows.
I rotate between several mantras, sometimes depending on my mood, sometimes to address a certain life situation. For example, practicing White Tara or Medicine Buddha when I am physically ill.
Generally I feel like they are all effective(?) and I don't know whether I should just pick one to focus on, or just do what I'm doing now and spread my effort out over a few practices. I understand that on an ultimate level, it doesn't really matter because all Buddhas have the same realization, but on a mundane level, how do you know which mantra suits you?

Look at what happens to your mind through chanting them.
I find 'Om mani padme hum' powerful because of the deep yet concise rememberance, discussed here: What is the meaning of 'Om mani padme hung'?
But I found a Hindu mantra in English that I really connect with 'I am not this body, I am not this mind: I am, I am, I am'.
It is more important to really chant, with commitment, to follow the experience, than to pick and choose words though.
Here is a teaching letter from Seung Sahn on mantra practice.


text:
The Super Fast Karma - Covid 19
Recently i have visited various charities clubs/monastery backup by quite a huge religion community to help out my dad due to covid infection. They are doing well in many areas in term of good deed but i noticed the below. The club may influence others on social media of the below where information can be spread massively and rapidly. If you google the below on any religion, then you may find quite an information.

Not following simple standard operating procedure and influence others to do so. i.e. no wearing mask, no social distance, etc. Some would say they already infected and immune to virus so mask is not required or religion massive gathering without adhere any standard operating procedure.

Spreading false speech without proof such as the efficacy of the vaccine. i.e. Vaccine is bio-weapon and many died due to the vaccine.

Spreading false speech without proof or information without clinical trial such as usage of some medicine/drug that able to cure Covid and avoid taking vaccine or even hospitalization or avoid seek for professional medical help.

Q1) Isn't all of these not just the false speech but against the Buddhism #1 precept ? It's not only killing one but it's might rapidly lead to a massive killing either intentionally or unintentionally ?
Q2) Isn't the action above might rapidly commit all the below as Sotapanna ? All merits may suddenly gone?

actions that are not committed
A sotāpanna will not commit six wrong actions:[31]
Murdering one's own mother.
Murdering one's own father.
Murdering an arahant.
Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing blood.
Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.

Admin Please remove this post if found inappropriate. Translate please: Namo Buddhaya.

What could hunt after good householder if he would let go of bad thoughts, demands, claims and deeds? Yet as long as not seeing ones own delusion, caught in a fault, dwelling in painful states, it's of course difficult. Especially if having disregarded holly ones, that closes up all further development.
Good if good householder let's go of RED very quick and in time.

well, I move to a place with no or minimum covid impact for healing. Back to ur answer to let go all quick in time. If a person is coughing then you ask the person dont cough would it b possible? Some sharing here too https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-toxic-positivity-5093958

Nobody, aside of to much little RED, forces good householder to stay next of what he does not like. Why demand? Help yourself first means learn to sacrifice, give... yourself first. Not the usual way, wanting others to do this and give that. So now: hurry up. Red gets hotter and hotter.

let me ask u ques. If someone in severe pain like losing close one or during funeral session or someone just loss the job then u say this word above ? Did u read my my link provided above ? Please continue in the buddhism chat area n tag me if u wish to continue

If searching for release, yes. If after RED, possible no need to talk further. (and Links: usually not if not dhammic) Good householder seeks after what? Aside, if able to let go of red, always open here. No wishes.

False speech is harmful, also when the TV does it.

is not from TV but experience myself especially certain religion club. Well i believe not all cities like that. probably only few cities. I dont watch TV too much by the way, as well as political and news recently. only as necessary.


text:
What is meant by "claims the bull’s place, roars his lion’s roar in the assemblies" and was an actual loud lion-like sound ever uttered by the Buddha?
What is meant by "claims the bull’s place, roars his lion’s roar in the assemblies" and was an actual loud lion-like sound ever uttered by the Buddha? One example of the quote is mentioned in https://suttacentral.net/mn12/en/sujato

The Pali word that's translated "lion's roar" is sīhanāda.
This dictionary lists a few Pali suttas where it's found, and gives a definition as,

sīhanāda : (m.) lion's roar; a brave speech.

I think's it meant to imply unafraid or confident, and not just loud.
Google suggests it's used in Tibetan teaching too, in a phrase or doctrine related to fearlessness -- for example here:

In the third turning of the wheel of dharma, the Buddha speaks of the lion's roar. The lion's roar is the fearless proclamation that anything that happens in our state of mind, including emotions, is manure. Whatever comes up is a workable situation; it is a reminder of practice, and it acts as a speedometer. It is a way to proceed further into the practice of meditation.
In this way we begin to realize that all kinds of chaotic situations that might occur in life are opportune situations. They are workable situations that we mustn't reject, and mustn't regard as purely a regression or going back to confusion at all. Instead, we must develop some kind of respect for those situations that happen in our state of mind.

But I don't know how to find a reference for that (third turning).
If or given that it is associated with the "third turning" I note that it's also associated with the first -- i.e. the Pali suttas -- in that the title of DN 26 is sometimes given as

The Wheel-Turning Monarch
Cakkavattisutta

... and sometimes as ...

The Discourse on the Lion-roar of the Wheel-turner
Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta

... of which this analysis by Piya Tan includes a page-long definition. Here's a quote from that but you might want to read the whole definition by following the link.

Based on all this, the commentaries say that a lion-roar is a roar of fearlessness (abhīta,nāda, DA
3:827), a fearless response, rejoicing in another’s remark or one’s own (DA 3:844), a statement of supremacy (or a foremost remark), of fearlessness, which cannot be debunked (seṭṭha,nādaṁ abhīta,nādaṁ
appaṭi,nādaṁ, AA 2:303, 4:171), such as declaring the presence of recluses (samaṇa) in the teaching
(MA 2:7). There are at least a couple of discourses that are themed on the
“lion-roar,” that is, the (Anicca) Sīha Sutta (S 22.78), the (Catukka) Sīha
Sutta (A 3.33) and the (Dasaka) Sīha Sutta (A 10.21).

Thank you. Seems much more comment on "lion's roar" than "bull's place" and/or "assemblies." . . . Doubt lion has anything to do with the Leo constellation and bull with Taurus, but there it is

I assume "bull" might be a reference to how cattle are (and maybe were) treated in India, i.e. held sacred and allowed to wander or stand where they will without being disrespected.

Perhaps also interesting to note various symbologies associated with lions and bulls around that era (or prior), i.e. maybe with Anu being one of them for bull


text:
What is the reference for taming a ferocious bathhouse Naga into a tiny snake in a bowl?
I remember Ajahn Punnadhammo telling a story about maybe the Buddha or Moggallana taming a ferocious bathhouse Naga and emerging from the bathhouse displaying that it was now a small snake in a bowl. What is the canonical or otherwise reference for this story?

Vinaya, Mahavagga, Uruvelapāṭihāriyakathā good householder. Can "anonymous" serve anonymous else?
It would be much better to approach Ajahn gratefully personal.

Ata,bot thank ya


text:
Should dukkha be translated as `being unexpected`?
Dukkha is traditionally translated as suffering, but I heard from a scholar of Eastern history that it's better translated as being unexpected. In my interpretation (not just in what I heard), that suffering only describe what you feel, not the reason making it. Therefore, being unexpected is a better translation.
Is this reasonable? If suffering is still a good fit, then what would be the equivalent Pali/Sanskrit word for being unexpected?

I generally translate dukkha as 'discontentment' which captures the dual ideas that:

something is not as the self expects, and...
the self is not happy with that unwanted circumstance.

'Being unexpected' implies (in English, at least) a sense of surprise that doesn't necessarily pertain. One can be discontent with the fact that a given meal tastes bad, but not at all surprised by it if one knows the cook.  And 'being unexpected' seems to miss the affect of the tension between what one wants and what one gets.
But that being said, I don't know exactly how your tradition is approaching it, so 'being unexpected' might work perfectly within context.

Assuming "discontentment" is better than "suffering", do you think it's a good idea to change to it? Is there any reason to keep using "suffering"?

@Ooker: It's one of those things that will work out as it works out. 'Suffering' has history and tradition on its side in the West; it's the original translation, which will always carry weight. It creates unnecessary and misleading associations with Christian theosophy (martyrdom and the suffering of Jesus), but a skilled buddhist teacher can walk students through and around that. I use 'discontent', but I don't have a following. If others decide to use it, it might eventually supplant 'suffering'. (shrug...)

@Ooker: Honestly, I think it's more important to have people wrestle with the metaphysical concept than argue over terminology. If we get the sense of the idea, the words are mere conventions; doesn't really matter which we use so long as we get what it's pointing at. That's a pedagogical issue, not a philosophical or spiritual one.

That's not a bad translation, although it may sound too neutral to convey the original idea. A pleasant surprise can be unexpected, does that make it dukkha? No.
Another word I can think of, along the similar lines, is simply "wrong" in the sense of "not supposed to be this way". I feel that's closer to the connotation of the Sanskrit/Pali du-.
That said, when I asked a native speaker of a language that derives significant part of its vocabulary from Sanskrit/Prakrit what this word meant to them, they insisted that in their language "dukkha" simply means "sadness" or "melancholy" or "grief" etc. - i.e. to them it definitely seems to be a word describing an emotion, not the objective world.
So for my own purposes I came to translate it, however crudely, as "the feeling of wrongness" or "the feeling of something being not-as-it-should".
Another facet this word has in suttas is the meaning that whatever is dukkha is unreliable or faulty or treacherous or deceptive, i.e. on the surface it looks like one thing, but when you take it for real and try to rely on it, then it does not work as expected and turns out to be not quite the thing it appeared to be.
If you take these two together, "being wrong or not as it should be" and "being unreliable" - you can see how "being other than expected" could make sense, but you should remember we are talking about an emotion here, so it's that feeling of frustration due to an irreconcilable mismatch between expectations and reality is what we call dukkha.

What is the language that native speaker used?

I don't remember, maybe Marathi? One of the Indian languages.

Dukkha isn't a state of "being" something (e.g. "being unexpected") -- instead, dukkha is "made" (or it's a state of "making" something) -- that is taught in the second Noble Truth.

So a state of making... Being (be eating), editor? «smile» dukkha?


text:
Identify this deity?
Can you help naming and listing god qualities :

This appears to be (Yellow) Jambhala, the God of Fortune and Wealth.

Yes apart from the colour that does look like a mongoose in his left hand (as mentioned in the description in Wikipedia).


text:
Is "no arising" a thing?
Is "no arising" a thing or just something we may be taught? If it's a teaching only, I guess it's used to show that something else is not the case (showing e.g. that series do end).
If it's a dharma in the other sense, then does it exist relative to things arising, so that something arises whenever another thing fails to (showing that series do not end)?
More generally speaking, can we fully conceive of the mark of arising without 'no arising', and / or vice versa?

My apologies if that comes off garbled, I did my best.

I recommend this answer -- perhaps it's related to your question, it's about non-arising.

No, this came across pretty clearly. I think your question perfectly captures the essence of the debate that happened several centuries after Buddha's death.
Back then there was a lot of work done by Sarvastivada followers and other early schools trying to enumerate the dharmas as one final exhaustive list, sort of like the table of chemical elements these days.
As they were doing that, one dharma that kept standing out was "nirodha", defined as "not arising". This was supposed to be referring to Nirvana/Nibbana, not-arising of the chain of dependent origination (and suffering) due to the absence of passion and grasping, due to the absence of wrong views, due to the absence of ignorance. (Some said nirodha was unconditioned/asamskrta because it owed its existence to absence of necessary conditions, rather than presence - a philosophical sleight of hand.
While I would not personally equate nirodha with nirvana and idolize all kinds of not-arising, the point that Nirvana is effected by liberation from wrong view -- and from the "right view with asava" -- does make it look like a kind of nirodha. That said, the unconditionality of Nirvana comes from it being immune to all imputations that serve as the bases of conditions, so Nirvana is seen through nirodha of imputations, Nirvana is not nirodha itself. In other words Nirvana is tathata, the unity of Two Truths, while nirodha of Ignorance is just a way to see the Absolute.)
The same questions as the ones you asked, whether not-arising was a thing, and can it be said to truly exist other than relative to arising, were undoubtedly brought up and led to a debate about the notion of existence and not existence, and the concept of svabhava (existing by itself or from its own side). Well, it wasn't just about this dharma, there were other controversial dharmas like akasa (space, defined as "no resistance to movement"), and even simpler dharmas like heaviness, but non-arising was likely at the top of the list.
This debate, in turn, is what (probably) led to the emergence of the notion of Emptiness and the tradition of Madhyamaka as we know it today.
The exact details of that development are still not clear to me, i.e. whether it was directly inspired by the prajnaparamita movement or just happened to come to the same conclusion from another side, but the point that Madhyamaka was born in or close to Gandhara from polemics around Sarvastivada Abhidharma is pretty much settled for me.
To answer your question directly: the Buddhism split at this very question. Mahayana says all dharmas (~"things") are relative and are delineated approximately by an observer. Mahayana says the very notion of "existence" or "being a thing" is, too, an approximated delineation. According to this view, arguing about something being or not being really real is foolish and betrays fundamental confusion on one's part about the nature of reality and the Buddha's teaching. The non-Mahayana (so-called "Hinayana") schools stand by their conviction that some dharmas are really real and not mere relative delineations/imputations - though they don't all agree on the exact list, especially when it comes to the asamskrta/unconditioned dharmas. But yeah, at least in some of the "Hinayana" schools nirodha (~not-arising) is considered a real dharma, something that actually exists.

You may well be right, and your answer is fairly clearly engaged with my question. But I'm a bit confused about how unequivocal you make it seem. Without any references, I am led to ask but isn't nirvana empty? Cheers for any further elaboration

The notion of nirvana being empty is a Madhyamaka invention born in the said debate. Before that no one even asked such question, whether it's empty or not.

I'm sorry I don't have references. It would take me exponentially more time to provide these answers with references. I agree it would be nice but it is how it is and I don't see that changing any time soon. My apologies.

Consider a pool of water. If there is an 'arising' — something bubbling up from the depths — the surface of the pool ripples and glimmers in the light.  If there is no 'arising' the surface of the pool is still and calm.
It's the nature of the pool to be still and calm. An arising is a disturbance.
The mistake all of us make (early on) is to presume that the pool is identical to the ripples and glimmers that we see on the surface. We see the effects of arisings and convince ourselves that arisings are the essence of the thing on which we see the effects. We cannot see the pool for the ripples.
'No arising' isn't a thing. It's the absence of a thing that the mind expects: the proverbial waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Two fail in liberation from suffering, not arising of it: those after becoming/being/arising, and those after not-becoming, not-being, not-arising, good householder.


text:
What is the cause of suffering in Buddhism, is it wanting, craving, attachment, or something else?
I've looked at other responses on Buddhism exchange and googled it too, and I'm still confused about the cause of suffering. Is there one root cause? Multiple causes? Or does Buddhism claim not to know the root cause but only causes later in the chain of causation?
Britannica seems to equate craving and attachment and suggest that is what Buddha considered the cause:

"The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon. In other Buddhist texts the causes of suffering are understood as stemming from negative actions (e.g., killing, stealing, and lying) and the negative mental states that motivate negative actions (e.g., desire, hatred, and ignorance)."
Four Noble Truths

My initial understanding had been that it was not desire that caused suffering (we all desire things, like if we're cold we desire warmth, and even experienced meditators will feel that way) but becoming attached to a desire or identifying with it. But now I don't know anymore.

This may be a duplicate of this question -- Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'? -- or at least the answers to that might be relevant.

If we get down to brass tacks, the root of the Buddhist problematic is the human ability to 'imagine otherwise'. Say (for a dumb example) that you're out on a date and you see someone and think: "I wonder if I'd be happier dating that person?" That mere thought might ruin the date you're on; it might fill you with longing for that once-seen stranger; it might make you feel confused, or sour, or lustful, or bitter... If you couldn't imagine dating anyone other than the person you were dating right at that moment — a state people commonly call 'true love' — you'd potentially save yourself a lot of mental anguish.
We have desire because we can imagine the world to be otherwise than it actually is. That means we can be dissatisfied, or frustrated, or arrogant, or greedy, etc... If we acknowledge that we can't have what we want it can lead to bitterness and resignation; if we don't acknowledge it, it can lead to craving and obsession.
There's confusion in the anglophone world — and likely elsewhere too, though I can't speak to that — because in English the the term 'desire' covers everything from milquetoast wishes to fanatical demands. The word doesn't allow for much discrimination, so that a somewhat random wish for a tuna salad sandwich uses the same term as a passionate, obsessive, irrational need to 'possess' another human. In the Buddhist worldview it isn't wrong to 'imagine otherwise' — that's the root of the problem, not the fruit — nor is it exactly wrong to have a desire. Trouble begins when we treat the world we 'imagine otherwise' as though it has more reality than the world as it actually is.
I understand that some readings of the Four Noble Truths imply that dukkha leads to tanhā (discontentment leads to craving), and that other readings of imply that tanhā leads to dukkha (craving leads to discontentment). I think the former is a better reading, but both are essentially true. It's a dynamic that spirals out of control. But if we go back to the root — the act of imagining something other than what is — we can bring them both into perspective.

Chief Bhadraka once asked the Buddha:

SN42.11:1.3: “Please, sir, teach me the origin and cessation of suffering.”

And the Buddha responded at length, eventually saying:

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

Given that desire is the root of suffering, we learn to be careful. Instead of running into a burning house to escape the winter, we might just put on a jacket. And here with the donning of a jacket, we notice a problem.
That problem is identification. The thought arises, "my jacket". Saying, "mine" is an obstruction to others.
The world is full of cold people. It is also full of closets with unworn jackets held as "my jacket".

MN22:3.2: “Is it really true, Reverend Ariṭṭha, that you have such a harmful misconception:
MN22:3.3: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them’?”

Understanding this, it only makes sense to be wary of desire, thinking:

MN22:27.1: “So, mendicants, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far
or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

So desire is the root of suffering. We can choose to hoard the world's jackets. Or we might instead choose to practice for the benefit of ourselves and others. We might choose a skillful desire:

SN55.43:5.1: “One who desires merit, grounded in the skillful,
SN55.43:5.2: develops the eightfold path for realizing the deathless.
SN55.43:5.3: Once they’ve reached the heart of the teaching, delighting in ending,
SN55.43:5.4: they don’t tremble at the approach of the King of Death.”

Don't all suffer and hurt each other, get sick, old and die? Yet the cause of desire after suffering (unkowenly) is not-knowing that craving sits at the root, at first place, good householder, and if, not knowing the way out.

There are three root cause of sufferings.

Greed or desire
Aversion or hatred
Delusion or ignorance


text:
The Problem of Evil/Suffering modified into Buddhism
I have a question about Buddhism, which is similar to or modified from the Problem of Evil or the Problem of Suffering in western religion philosophy:
If [ by definition from ordinary intuition ] the Buddha Sakyamuni really had achieved perfect altruistic "merit" or "abilities", then, contradictorily, why when the Buddha Sakyamuni was presenting in the world, the hell is NOT "empty"? --- there were still sentient beings in the situations, such as in the hell, that they cannot meet the Buddha Sakyamuni? Doesn't the NON-emptiness of the hell means there are still rooms yet for achieving perfect altruistic "merit" or "abilities"?
Hello everyone. I am from Taiwan. Thank you in advance for everyone who may or does give any constructive/helping information.
P.S. Actually I have flagged this my question post as "in need of moderator intervention". Explanation: (1) I was indeed surprised by myself that thoughts questioning the Buddha via the way of reductio ad absurdum came out in my mind (and also written in my question post). (2) I don't have confidence that such reductio ad absurdum is no misleading/misguiding to every kind/level of Buddhism learners.

I really have some kind of concern that such way of thinking in my question post may be danger.

Why did you post this comment about "danger"? Would you like to explain at greater length e.g.  in a Chat room? And/or is there something you might like a moderator to do, perhaps to edit, about what's posted in this topic? How can we help?

You are asking, if the Buddha is perfect and omniscient, why didn't he save everyone already by now?
And you are worried that asking this question is a sin, as if you are stepping on a dangerous path by questioning the Buddha, did I understand that right?

If you're concerned that your question is "dangerous," ask to have it deleted or modified so that it is no longer "dangerous." That seems reasonable, no?

@Caoimhghin I've thought better of my question; can I delete it? suggests we avoid deleting the topic -- because it has two "good" answers -- so I was trying to find another solution, or to even understand what the problem seems to be.

Actually I have flagged this my question post as "in need of moderator intervention".
Explanation: (1) I was indeed surprised by myself that thoughts questioning the Buddha via the way of reductio ad absurdum came out in my mind (and also written in my question post). (2) I don't have confidence that such reductio ad absurdum is no misleading/misguiding to every kind/level of Buddhism learners.

There are no dangerous questions; there are only dangerous answers.

A somewhat hand-waving answer would be "Hell is both empty and not empty". This excerpt from Khyentse Norbu's book What Makes You Not A Buddhist would probably make things clearer:

Let's say there is a cowardly man named Jack who has a phobia about
snakes. Jack walks into a dimly lit room, sees a snake coiled up in
the corner, and panics. In fact he is looking at a striped Giorgio
Armani tie, but in his terror he has misinterpreted what he sees to
the point that he could even die of fright—death caused by a snake
that does not truly exist. While he is under the impression that it is
a snake, the pain and anxiety that he experiences is what Buddhists
call "samsara," which is a kind of mental trap. Fortunately for Jack,
his friend Jill walks into the room. Jill is calm and sane and knows
that Jack thinks he sees a snake. She can switch on the light and
explain that there is no snake, that it is actually a tie.
[...] It's important to understand that by switching on the light and
demonstrating that there is no snake, Jill is also saying that there
is no absence of the snake. In other words, she cannot say, "The snake
is gone now," because the snake was never there. She didn't make the
snake disappear, just as Siddhartha didn't make emptiness. This is why
Siddhartha insisted that he could not sweep away the suffering of
others by waving his hand. Nor could his own liberation be granted or
shared piecemeal, like some sort of award. All he could do was explain
from his experience that there was no suffering in the first place,
which is like switching on the light for us.
When Jill finds Jack frozen in terror, she has some choices about what
to do. She can directly point out that there is no snake, or she can
use a skillful method such as escorting the "snake" from the room. But
if Jack is so terrified that he is unable to differentiate the snake
from the tie, even with the light on, and if Jill is not skillful,
then she could actually make things worse. If she dangles the necktie
in Jack's face, he could die of a heart attack. But if Jill is
skillful and sees that Jack is delusional, she can say, "Yes, I see
the snake," and carefully take the tie out of the room so that Jack
feels safe for the time being.

In short, the Buddha could see that hell is empty - a.k.a conditioned and lacking inherent existence - and he could also see that others might not see it that way. For some of them, saying "hell is empty" might not help them advance on the path to enlightenment as much as "there is hell".

I really have some kind of concern that such way of thinking in my question post may be danger.

Actually I have flagged this my question post as "in need of moderator intervention".
Explanation: (1) I was indeed surprised by myself that thoughts questioning the Buddha via the way of reductio ad absurdum came out in my mind (and also written in my question post). (2) I don't have confidence that such reductio ad absurdum is no misleading/misguiding to every kind/level of Buddhism learners.

Great answer. Will check out Norbu's book.

In Western traditions, evil is typically seen as personified into a being with a power similar to the power of good, locked in eternal battle over the souls of humans. However, this concept did not exist in early Judaism, which held Yahweh responsible for both good and evil. One of the oldest Hebrew texts, Isaiah states in 45:7:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Evil as a separate concept & entity became prevalent in Western religion based on the dualistic Zoroastrian model, where Good was represented by Ahura Mazda and Evil by Angra Mainyu. This was integrated into Judaism during the Persian occupation. It is from this period and its writings that we get Satan as the personification of evil, which found its way into Christianity and Islam: a powerful being working against the creator deity by tempting human souls into sin.
There are some similar myths in Buddhism, like Mara tempting the Buddha to prevent him achieving attainment, but by large the Karmic principle is not based on the forces of evil conspiring against humans, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Evil, both as a human characteristic and as an external force, is a foreign concept to Buddhism. Instead, each individual's choices and actions are the determinating factor in his/her Karmic destiny.
Which brings us to "The Problem of Evil": the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.
In Theravada and some Mahayana schools, deities are irrelevant to Buddhism. It is personal practice and adherence to the path that results in attainment, not divine intervention. In Mahayana, this principle is known as 自力 (Jap: Jiriki), "one's own strength".
And yes, there are Mahayana schools that subscribe to 他力 (Jap: Tariki) meaning "other power", "outside help". Some believers of Pure Land Buddhism, for example, believe Amitabha Buddha will lead them to enlightenment, similar to Christians believing that Jesus takes away their sins to allow them into paradise. But even in Tariki schools, evil is not personified into an external, personalized force, but it does identify evil as part of our human nature that one must come to term with - in fact, this "negative thinking" is essential in Tariki schools to realize that one needs the help of a Buddha to reach attainment.
As for beings in hell, many Mahayana schools teach that every one of the Samsara realms has a Bodhisattva to assist those dwelling in that realm. For example, Ksitigarbha: Bodhisattva of the Hell Realm.

"Christians believing that Jesus takes away their sins" Maybe off-topic here but I think the doctrine is that Jesus and baptism removed Original sin; perhaps that Man is justified by Faith (schools differ on that subject); and, so far as I know, that God is benevolent but problems arise from Man choosing other than God.

@Chrisw I referred to "sin", not "original sin".

Yes and I thought that might be misleading or oversimplifying and so I commented, but never mind, it's off-topic. I thought the bits of the answer about Buddhist doctrine were just right.

I really have some kind of concern that such way of thinking in my question post may be danger.

Actually I have flagged this my question post as "in need of moderator intervention".
Explanation: (1) I was indeed surprised by myself that thoughts questioning the Buddha via the way of reductio ad absurdum came out in my mind (and also written in my question post). (2) I don't have confidence that such reductio ad absurdum is no misleading/misguiding to every kind/level of Buddhism learners.

Lord Budhdha nor anyone can deliver others to Nirvana. Your deliverance is in your hands. Lord Budhdha can only show you the path. Walking on it is your responsibility. Lord Budhdha clearly teaches that the Apaya and even planes of existence like Arupaloka are unsuitable places because in these planes you cannot hear Dhamma. If you are in them, you first have to get out of them in order to listen to Dhamma. Lord Budhdha explains that sansara (the endless cycle of birth and death) is an extremely dangerous place due to this reason. Yes there are places you can enjoy for a little while, but there are planes worse than your wildest nightmares. Only you and you alone can end your sansara.


text:
Academic Interview
My name is Aidan, I am a senior student from a small High School in Ontario, Canada. I am doing a research project on Buddhism in a world cultures class. I would like to ask practicing Buddhists some questions about the religion to learn more about Buddhism. I have attempted to contact some local Buddhist groups to ask questions, however, none have responded to me. I figured this would be a good place to try and find some practicing Buddhists. If you would be interested in helping me learn more about the religion, I would greatly appreciate any responses.
Below I have added the questions for those who would like to respond in the comments. Answer as many or as few as you’d like.

In your opinion, how would you define the organized religion of
‘Buddhism’? Were there any familial expectations to become involved
in this religion or was this a personal choice that you made? What
does it mean to be ‘Buddhist’ to you?
How long have you been practicing Buddhism? Has your religion been an
influential factor in how you were raised? (Eg: have you ever been
unable to partake in certain activities because it would compromise
your religious beliefs/practices?) Is there a personal reason as to
why you chose to become Buddhist?
What are some of the customary rituals and practices related to
Buddhism? Are prayer and meditation essential components of this
organized religion? If so, how many times a day/week do you pray?
In your opinion, does meditating help you obtain physical, mental and
spiritual health?
Are there any items that should be avoided in this life if one were
to become a practicing Buddhist? (ex. Foods, meats, alcohol?)
What does Buddhism suggest happens to you when you die? Is there such
a thing as an ‘afterlife’ in Buddhism? What are your personal
thoughts on what happens when you die?
Hinduism and Buddhism are two of the largest religions in the world.
Both believe in reincarnation, however, both religions are very
different from each other. What do you think are the key factor(s)
that differentiate the two religions?
What do you think of the ideas of modern Atheists/Agnostics, who
believe there is no God(s) or do not believe there is enough proof to
determine if there is a God or not? Is the practice of Buddhism
respectful of these ideas?
In the future, how do you think Buddhsim will evolve moving forward
throughout the world
Do you think that there are any misconceptions that surround the
organized religion of Buddhism and if so, what do you think they are?
What solutions would you put forward to combat these misconceptions
in Canada today and moving forward?
How could a person go about joining/becoming a buddhist? If you
didn’t join via your family, how did you join buddhism?
How has COVID-19 affected how your practice buddhism?

This isn't really the best place for this, for several reasons. (1) it's quite difficult to answer a set of question like this on this forum. (2) you'll have selection bias: this site leans heavily towards deep seekers and high practice; you'll miss most of the cultural aspects of the religion. However, Ontario has a number of decent Buddhist centers; your best bet is go to a few of them in person and ask if you can do interviews or pass out questionnaires. You'll be received well...

"Polling" questions are explicitly off-topic on SE.

Agreed with the above comments, plus I feel the list of questions is too long for someone to answer in writing in a single post.

Those are good questions for one who would be interested to get a little familar, yet of course personal raised. Thinking that good householder seeks after answers for kind of statistics doesn't inspire others much. How ever, maybe raising question one by one and try to personalize them, say not asking for opinions but from the Buddhas view.

What I don't understand, Aidan, is questions like this: "Were there any familial expectations to become involved in this religion or was this a personal choice that you made?" This is obviously a "personal" question. Why ask that kind of question? Is it idle curiosity? Collecting statistics? Trying to find a correlation between the ways in which different questions are answered?


text:
Why is that the pleasent feelings last for small time while unplesent feelings seem to last forever?
Why is it that when we feel pleasant and positive feelings, the state of heart-mind is evanescent while when we are feeling down and unpleasant feelings that state of heart-mind feels like everlasting?
The default state seems unpleasant then we practice mindfulness and meditation, the pleasant state is attained for some time, as soon as it comes the mind tries to grab hold of it, it's gone. My question is about why the time for which they last the way it is?

Pleasant feelings last as long as we enjoy them.

MN44:24.2: “Pleasant feeling is pleasant when it remains and painful when it perishes.

Painful feelings are pleasant when they end.

MN44:24.3: Painful feeling is painful when it remains and pleasant when it perishes.

Painful feeling do cease eventually.

DN34:1.4.27: Renunciation is the escape from sensual pleasures. The formless is the escape from form. Cessation is the escape from whatever is created, conditioned, and dependently originated.

However, painful feelings will persist as long as we insist on craving pleasant feelings.

MN44:25.2: “The underlying tendency for greed underlies pleasant feeling. The underlying tendency for repulsion underlies painful feeling. The underlying tendency for ignorance underlies neutral feeling.”

Struggling to escape from painful feelings by pursuing pleasant feeling perpetuates this endless cycle. The escape from this cycle is to relinquish the tendency to hold on tight:

MN143:6.1: You should train like this:
MN143:6.2: ‘I shall not grasp sight, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on sight.’ …
MN143:6.5: ‘I shall not grasp sound …
MN143:6.6: smell …
MN143:6.7: taste …
MN143:6.8: touch …
MN143:6.9: thought,  and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on thought.’

If painful feelings last longer than pleasant feeling, then there may be benefit in examining such continued existence.

MN38:17.8: Craving is a condition for grasping.
MN38:17.9: Grasping is a condition for continued existence.

Grasping at pleasant feelings, wishing them to continue creates suffering. Pleasant feelings always vanish and that vanishing is painful. It remains painful as long as we grasp at the memory of the pleasant feeling that is now gone. Wanting pleasant feelings to continue after they are gone is painful. So, by not grasping at the pleasant feelings, unpleasant feelings will disappear on their own.

Thank you so much for the answer. Just did not understand the last part...'Grasping is...' I mean, I am not grasping the unpleasant feelings, on the contrary, I want them go...and I try to grasp the pleasant but that does not result in continued existence, on the contrary, if I try to grab it, it vanishes...

@TheWhiteCloud I've added more to the last paragraph. Yes, grabbing at pleasant feelings is painful because pleasant feelings always do vanish. Since they always vanish, there is no need to grab.

Pleasant sensations are what the egoic mind expects. They do not present themselves as problems (they only become problems when they are absent), so the thinking mind does not focus on them or track them over time. Pleasant sensations are merely experienced.
Unpleasant sensations are viewed by the egoic self as intrusions — things contrary to what it expects — and thus as problems to be solved. The thinking mind focuses on them, tracks them over time, and analyses ways to eliminate them and gain (or return to) pleasant sensations. Unpleasant sensations are not merely experienced; they are attached to past, future, and the desire for a different condition.
In other words, the only difference between pleasant and unpleasant sensations is that the thinking mind engages the latter. The egoic self marks the time of unpleasant sensations as part of its efforts to rid itself of them. During pleasant experiences the thinking mind drifts off, having nothing much to do.
This is part of the practice of Vipassana meditation, incidentally. In Vipassana body-scans one seeks out aches and irritations and watches them, seeing them as mere (impermanent) sensations. This disrupts the fixations of the thinking mind, with the result that these unpleasant sensations come to have the same evanescent quality as pleasant experiences.

Both pleasant and unpleasant last forever but we only remember unpleasant. Our craving never stops, if we get something that makes us happy our craving does not stop there it wants more pleasant, more and more..thats why the pleasant becomes unpleasant after sometimes..on the other hand we want to forget unpleasant and that makes us think more about unpleasant..

One who does neither grasp after pleasing, nor unpleasing, not neither-pleasing-nor-unpleasing feeling, such one has arived under the Khema, secure.
Seeing pleasant as an arrow, unpleasant as a pain, knowing neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant will not remaind, the wise has abound to be touched by what ever feeling may arise.


text:
Where exactely is the 'source of thoughts' and the 'feeling of self' located?
When I am meditating, most of the time the thoughts feel like arising from the heart center, and sometimes they feel like lingering in the head. Same with the 'feeling of self', most of the time it feels like 'I am' feeling is located somewhere around the heart. I need to know as I think being mindful in this region will help a lot to stop thoughts and to attain 'anatta.

feeling is formless :|

Aristotle said the heart is the seat of consciousness

thought is internal verbalization

Nibbedhika Sutta Penetrative says, ""And what is the result of perception? Perception has communication by speech as its result, I tell you...

This is like asking where the source of the wind lies. Winds don't have a 'source'; they are mere movements of the air that come from everywhere and nowhere. A thought is a movement of attention, an eddy in the flow of energy that we commonly think of as 'being alive'. When the energy moves on, the thought disappears like a breeze fading into stillness.
But by all means, focus attention wherever you perceive an arising. That is a good way to learn the essence of emptiness.

I'm not sure why, it seems to be localised in the head. I think that's because of proximity to sense-organs, i.e. no matter whether thoughts are like words or more like images, the ear and eyes (which are in or at the head) are where we're accustomed to those being.
See what SN 22.100 has to say about the five clinging-aggregates:

It's just as when a dog is tied by a leash to a post or stake

If much of rupa (form) is perceived by sense-organs in the head then perhaps that is "where" we assume "everything" (including for example, "thoughts") arises.
See also the twelve nidanas where feelings and so on arise from "contact" and "sense bases".
Incidentally part of a (non-Buddhist) martial arts training is to move that centre-of-awareness downward into the lower of the three dan tien -- from that I assume that that location isn't fixed, inherent, or single, but is perhaps more a matter of attention and of habit. Also as I was taught it those aren't exactly a "source", they're more like a node of a network on which there's circulation.

In western culture it’s the head.  In eastern culture it tends to be the gut. I’ll see if I can find a source.

And when a nice cloth is seen it's inside of that, right? :-)
The source, cause, is craving, caused by not-knowing (things as they really 'are', arise, decay).
Now, where is it felt here now, or running in wheels among the aggregates?
And which fool told good householder to try to attain anatta?

if a good fool would tell a good householder to try to attain anatta, then the good is working together. if a bad fool says this then there must be a reason as well


text:
Validating a position means attempting to discredit other positions?
When the Sublime Buddha discredited some wanderers' position by uprooting their stand, would it be correct to assume that such an act is made for their harm, the harm of many, even his own?
What does someone who is informed on this matter think?

I guess you're talking about his uprooting not just "views" but "wrong views"? But I don't see how that could be to everyone's harm.

I would like to supply this quote from Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo, from a work in which he did exactly what you are asking, and explained his actions this way:

“… given that we have observed the fallacy of philosophical systems
that posit… this reasoning, which demonstrates… is not presented with
the intention of undermining someone else’s philosophical system
through conflict and contradiction. Rather, it is a description of the
perception that may cause the collapse on one’s own philosophical
position through one’s own philosophical position alone.
If it is said that someone proves any from among those self-defeating
philosophical theories, this would only reference a flawless
establishing proof for proponents of [that particular] philosophical
theory—this is, those who perceive their own dialectical procedure to
be flawless. Yet, from the point of view of those with deep and
expansive awareness, philosophical proof is nonetheless a perception
that is fabricated as one’s own experience, which is comparable to
turbid water. For example, in the past, the Brahmin named Terrestrial
Flower said to the Brahman named Undying:
Alas, O Brahmin, your     Totally faultless methods,  When seen from my
point of view,    Taint and habituate you with every word. (Italics are
my own)

Thus, I would infer that the act of the Buddha to discredit some wanderer’s position, was done to teach them how they themselves might—at some point in time—perceive their own philosophical position to be faulty, rather than flawless, and thus directly experience the inadequacy of having a philosophical system, absent a direct insight into the problematic nature of all philosophical systems, which surely will lead them astray. Therefore, the Buddha acted out of concern, and not to harm.

Appreciation for effort, good householder James. As it seems to be a merely philosophical approach of a wanderer: what might be the Sublime Buddhas account?

Maybe the right answer does not turn around whether cutting anothers ideas, criticize, or not, but whether it's critic of what deserves critic or not? Who knows?