text:
There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation
I am a beginner and I stumbled upon the sentence in a video given by a monk.

There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a
pleasant sensation

I will give you the context

We have to remove this idea that there is something beneficial about
the happiness. This is probably mind  blowing for most people if
they've never studied things like Buddhism. But really what objective
and what answer can you give if I ask objectively or intrinsically
"What benefit do you gain from pleasure ? From physical pleasure ?
What is positive about it ?" And you know you can simply you can give
a tautology and say "it's good because it's pleasant" or "pleasant
sensations are good because they're pleasant" which are both
meaningless of course.
And this isn't simply a tricky sort of argument, it's not an
intellectual trick of sorts. It's actually true that there is no
benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant
sensation.  (...) The issue is this clinging, this craving for
pleasant sensations and the idea that pleasure is somehow positive.

As the monk said, it is a bit mind blowing for me. If I take an example, when I am hungry, I am in pain, which is the nature way to tell me "Time to have a meal" and when I am full, the nature is telling me I have eaten enough and I do not need to eat more.
And when I am listening to pleasant music or when I am with people I like/I love, I feel my mind at ease and I am happy.
So my question is: what does the monk really mean ?

It's really simple. (Long-term) benefit and (immediate) pleasure don't always go hand in hand, and more often than not they are in the opposition to each other.
Life can be lived with pleasure as one's guide, always choosing what's pleasant now regardless of its long term harm or benefit.
Or life can be lived with long term wellness, health, and happiness as one's guide - regardless of whether it is immediately pleasant or unpleasant.
Guess which method actually leads to more pleasure down the road?
This is the basic idea, that pleasure is a bad advisor. Children and naive people pursue pleasure over benefit. Wise people pursue benefit over pleasure.
Now, not all pleasure is misleading. There's a category of pleasure that accords with Dharma. A pleasure of peace, a pleasure of simplicity, a pleasure of laying down a burden of attachment, a pleasure of understanding the Teaching, a pleasure of recognizing one's attainments.
But if you are looking for a simple rule of thumb as a beginner, then the easiest way to practice is by separating all your thoughts, impulses, and motives in two classes: ones that lead towards peace, harmony, enlightenment, Nirvana - and ones that lead away. Pursuing long-term benefit you'll attain both benefit and pleasure. Pursuing just pleasure you'll attain none.

That's the main idea, and the second, more subtle idea, is that the pleasure in and of itself is an illusion. Sweets that seem tasty to young children are awfully primitive  to most adults - but try to explain that to a kid. Experiences seem pleasant when the observer is naive enough to evaluate them in a superficial way.
It is with other experiences like it is with the tastes - they are only pleasant in contrast with each other and only in certain combinations and only when you're hungry. Sexual act is only pleasant when you are "hungry" but quickly becomes a burden when you are satisfied and your partner begs for more. Not to mention the sexual disgust of having to share a bed with a person you don't find attractive.
If you carefully examine a pleasant sensation such as taste, smell, touch,  or even a more subtle pleasure of looking at a beautiful picture - you will notice your brain hard at work making the experience pleasant, comparing and contrasting it with other experiences and memories of experiences - all to convince itself that this sensation is in fact pleasant.
To a lucid observer pleasure is insubstantial like a lens flare and so is pain. However bright it's just a reflection.

thanks a lot, I really appreciated the effort to explain, specially the metaphors in the second part in the answer. I have just not understood your last sentence. I agree with you, pleasure works with comparison, but so are a lot of things in life: which job I prefer, which path of spirituality I want to follow, which person I want to marry, All that is based on previous experience and comparison. They are not insubstantial.  I think I may have missed a point.

Another thing: I do not understand why you seem to think that pain is an illusion. There are (very) rare cases where people are desensitized to (physical) pain. These people tend to have huge health problems because pain is the way of the nature to tell there is a danger.

A lot of time in Buddhism we talk from a perspective of the immediate phenomenology. So here I'm talking about the raw experiences of pleasure and pain. The previous experiences and comparisons may well be relatively real and valid. But the pleasure-ness felt at a specific moment in time is ephemeral like a desert mirage. It's not reliably pleasant, it seems pleasant and then it's not. What you said about pain is common knowledge. I'm not saying the information most people experience as pain is useless - I'm saying the "painfulness" of pain is a mirage overlayed on top of the original signal.

thanks a lot for your comment, i'm starting to get what you mean

All feelings are categorically classed as unpleasant in the Dhamma. If any feeling whatsoever was classed as good, something longed for, something that should be, as something that should occur and as worthy of being maintained, then in that case one can not be expected to develop disenchantment towards feeling & perception.
Whatever is felt is to be seen as impernanent, as a thorn, as dukkha. For one such as this disenchantment and turning away is possible.

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Just now, lord, while I was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'Three feelings have been spoken of by the Blessed One: a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain,[1] & a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. These are the three feelings spoken of by the Blessed One. But the Blessed One has said: "Whatever is felt comes under stress." Now in what connection was this stated by the Blessed One: "Whatever is felt comes under stress?"'"
"Excellent, monk. Excellent. These three feelings have been spoken of by me: a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain, & a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. These are the three feelings spoken of by me. But I have also said: 'Whatever is felt comes under stress.' That I have stated simply in connection with the inconstancy of fabrications. That I have stated simply in connection with the nature of fabrications to end... in connection with the nature of fabrications to fall away... to fade away... to cease... in connection with the nature of fabrications to change.

"It may happen, Ananda, that Wanderers of other sects will be saying this: 'The recluse Gotama speaks of the Cessation of Perception and Feeling and describes it as pleasure. What is this (pleasure) and how is this (a pleasure)?'
"Those who say so, should be told: 'The Blessed One describes as pleasure not only the feeling of pleasure. But a Tathagata describes as pleasure whenever and whereinsoever it is obtained.'"

There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation

Pleasant feelings do have a benefit, in that they allow the mind to be at ease in concentration (MN 36 paragraph 39). Pleasant feelings from meditation also allow the mind to overcome the temptation of sensual pleasures (MN 14 paragraph 3) .
As for "no intrinsic positive nature", this can only be understood by those minds that have reached higher levels of meditation, where knowing/touching the Nirvana element surpasses the benefit of pleasant feelings (AN 9.36).
In short, Buddhism teaches there are two types of pleasant feelings:
(i) arising from sensuality; and
(ii) arising from Dhamma practise.
Refer to the Sukha Vagga in the Anguttara Nikaya.
The second type of pleasant feelings have benefit. The Buddha taught they are to be developed and not feared (MN 36 paragraph 39).

We have to remove this idea that there is something beneficial about
the happiness.

"Happiness" is a word often used in a positive way in Buddhism. For example, the scriptures say: "Nirvana is the highest happiness" (Dhammapada 203 & 204).
As said above, it is important to distinguish between the different types of pleasant feelings and also distinguish between pleasant feelings and happiness.
While ultimately, the highest happiness is Nirvana or Non-Attachment, dhammic pleasant feelings have a strong role in the Buddhist way of life, such as the pleasant feelings & equanimous feelings of jhana.

This is probably mind blowing for most people if they've never studied things like Buddhism.

There is nothing "mind blowing" about the verbal drivel & babbling of monks that don't understand Buddhism.

But really what objective and what answer can you give if I ask objectively or intrinsically "What benefit do you gain from pleasure ? From physical pleasure ? What is positive about it ?

The Buddha taught "The Middle-Way" in his 1st sermon, which is a path of non-sensual pleasure and the avoidance of self-created pain (called 'self-mortification'). The quote above is not related to Buddhism but is sheer nonsense.

And you know you can simply you can give a tautology and say "it's good because it's pleasant" or "pleasant sensations are good because they're pleasant" which are both meaningless of course.

The above quote sounds like just Western philosophy. "Pleasantness" is "Dhamma" because pleasantness makes life bearable & liveable.
I already mentioned the Buddha taught there are two types of pleasantness and the 2nd type of pleasantness is to be developed and not feared or shunned.

And this isn't simply a tricky sort of argument, it's not an intellectual trick of sorts.

Sorry but the above is an intellectual trick, i.e., a trick of ignorance.

It's actually true that there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation. (...) The issue is this clinging, this craving for pleasant sensations and the idea that pleasure is somehow positive.

Since the true pleasant feelings of Buddhism arise from non-clinging, the above quote is illogical and heretical nonsense.
In conclusion, the quote in the question is unrelated to Buddhist principles and is probably best posted on Philosophy Stack Exchange.

If I take an example, when I am hungry, I am in pain, which is the
nature way to tell me "Time to have a meal" and when I am full, the
nature is telling me I have eaten enough and I do not need to eat
more.

The Buddha taught to eat food as follows:

In this a monk takes his food properly considering, not for sport, for
intoxication, for adornment or beautification, but purely for the
maintenance and nourishment of this body, for keeping it unharmed, as
an aid to the practice of the holy life, thinking: 'I shall put an end
to the old [unpleassant] feeling and not produce any new [unpleasant] feeling [from over-eating or excitement due to lust]. Thus I shall keep going, incur no fault and live at ease.' (SN 35.120)

And when I am listening to pleasant music or when I am with people I like/I love, I feel my mind at ease and I am happy.

For common ordinary unenlightened people (called 'puthujjana'), some types of music are not greatly harmful. However, from the viewpoint of enlightenment, music is sensual pleasure and an obstacle to the higher path.
As for associating with wise people (such as myself), yes, Buddhism recommends this. The Buddha said this will be for your welfare & happiness.

Good householder,
Good explaining by the Venerable in regard of what one seems to be most attached. How ever, people tend often to take things out of larger context to maintain certain sensation. So:
It's important, so that one doesn't get it wrong, falls even toward aversive approaches, or householder-equanimity, that there is also intrinsic negative nature in what is negative sensed, felt, and no intrinsic neither-positive-nor-negative (neutral) nature in what is neutral sensed. It's the nature of all touch, all feelings caused by touch on the six senses, all grasping and clinging arising on it, to be not real, not lasting, not to be controlled, taken to be ones own.
Just look for your self whether the certain object of sensation, the touch, the feeling that arises, the intend toward touch, the perception, the consciousness... what ever on being touched, lasts, is real, can be taken as refuge, regarded as own.
And if something can not be taken under control, can actually not be made ones own, isn't it stressful, loaded with suffering, Dukkha, good householder?
So importand, to understand, is to abstain from brain-masturbation, and actually look for one self in "real" occasion. Take one object of the eye and investigate touch, feeling, craving... perception, intent... the ear,...nose, thonge, body, intellect and see for your self.

Who sees the pain in happiness and views the painful feeling as a thorn, perceives the transience in neutral feeling which is peaceful —
right outlook, truly, has such a monk who fully understands these feelings;
And having penetrated them, he will be taint-free in this very life.
Mature in knowledge, firm in Dhamma's ways,
when once his life-span ends, his body breaks,
all measure and concept he has transcended.  Datthabba Sutta: To Be Known

And importand addition: ...aside of telling good householder that it isn't for his best to approach in a imature and faithless community of doubters, enjoying there times here on commercial interest of the giver, as not able to undertake something requiring given by themselves... but he might be bound likewise... no more of demerit increasing then seeking touch, association with fools.
Better to approach the Venerable or others of the Sangha of monks of the Buddha then to pull their gift into the dirt of doubt and attachments, bad conditions for grow. Anyway, as there was just a possibility, it was given for those who could be healed.
[Note that it isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]


text:
What is the meaning of the Datthabba Sutta?
In relation to the question: "Is there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation?", I read the following quote from SN 36.5 on the internet:

A mendicant who sees pleasure as pain, one who has seen the pleasant as painful, who sees the pain in happiness, Yo sukhaṃ dukkhato adda,
and suffering as a dart, the painful as a dart, views the painful feeling as a thorn, dukkhamaddakkhi sallato;
and that peaceful, neutral feeling adukkhamasukhaṃ santaṃ,
as impermanent, addakkhi naṃ aniccato.
sees rightly; sa ve sammaddaso bhikkhu,
they completely understand feelings. parijānāti vedanā;
Completely understanding feelings, So vedanā pariññāya,
they’re without defilements in this very life. diṭṭhe dhamme anāsavo;

Not necessarily adhering to the literal translations above:

What is the meaning of the Pali in verse above from Datthabba Sutta?

Does the Datthabba Sutta support the idea: 'there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation'?

How does the above verse in the Datthabba Sutta reconcile with the Pali verse: "Nibbanam paramam sukham: Nibbana is the supreme happiness"?

Are any of the translations above of the three Western monks accurate so to inspire faith in these ordained Westerners?

Maybe break this question up into several questions since current questions are too comprehensive/complex to address in a single answer.

MN1 states:

MN1:171.4: ‘Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti—

The happiness of nibbana is therefore empty of nandī.
MN1 also states the difficulty of this understanding:

MN1:172-194.31: But the mendicants were not happy with what the Buddha said.

Perhaps the clarification here may help, since there is identification in nandī:

MN1:148-170.24: nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ na maññati, nibbānasmiṁ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṁ meti na m
aññati, nibbānaṁ nābhinandati.

MN1:148-170.24: But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as
extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment.

Have you tried a different translation? The Access To Insight translation seems clearer.
This text seems pointed at equanimity, recognition of impermanence, and turning away from desire or aversion. All conventional Buddhist teaching.
Painful feelings as a thorn, seems to imply, as requiring attention/remediation like extracting a thorn, rather than, as something that disturbs the mind eg with hate or anger.

"there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a
pleasant sensation"

You choose a curious phrasing, that seems to unnecessarily complicate this. Positive, is very general term, as is benefit. Pleasant, implying pleasure, links to sensory gratification. Buddhist practice is about not pursuing sensory gratification for it's own sake. Fine things and comforts and rich foods and pleasant sensations, the things which 'push our buttons', are what are to be recognised as painful. If we don't get what we crave, it is painful. Getting it, we want more, or mourn it's loss or fading. So there is always pain involved, to craving.
The hold craving for pleasure has over us, and pursuit of pleasures, disturbs our equanimity, and fails to recognise that they are impermanent: they don't speak to or engage with the real business of living a meaningful life, and ending suffering and the causes of suffering, through direct insight into the true nature of things. That, is our task, as Buddhists.
Sensations can be a guide though, like the thorn example. When we add salt to food you could see it as 'seeking gratification', but paying close attention we find there are necessary minerals. So pleasure in that sense can be a kind of 'thorn', a guide.

What is the meaning of the Pali in verse above from Datthabba Sutta?

SN 22.59 says the five aggregates are impermanent, unsatisfactory (dukkham) & not-self, which are called the three characteristics.

Many suttas, such as SN 22.1, clearly show the word 'dukkha' in relation to the three characteristics does not mean suffering or pain but, instead, refers to the potential of impermanent things to bring suffering when clung to or the incapacity of impermanent things to bring real lasting happiness. For example, SN 22.1 says feelings (vedana) are related to suffering (sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair) only when clung to as "I", "me" & "mine".

It logically follows the Datthabba Sutta does not say "pleasure as pain" or "the pleasant as painful" or even "pain in happiness" as the translators translated.

Logically, if sukha was painful then sukha would be a "dart" or "sallato".

While pleasant feelings can be a "dart" ("sallato") in comparison to Nibbana, this is not the teaching in the Datthabba Sutta.

The word "dukkhato" or "dukkhata" means "state, nature or characteristic of unsatisfactoriness; capacity to bring suffering or incapacity to bring real happiness". A synonym for "dukkhato" is "danger" or "bait" ("agha"). "Dukkhato" is used in relation to the three characteristics in AN 6.99, in Thig 1.14 or as follows:

Khandhe aniccato disvā, dukkhato ca anattato; Khepetvā āsave sabbe, arahattamapāpuṇiṃ. Thi Ap 26

The Datthabba Sutta says the wise person sees the "potential for suffering" or "danger" or "unsatisfactoriness" or "imperfection" in pleasant feelings.

The Datthabba Sutta does not say pleasant feelings are painful, as the translators literally & illogical say.

If pleasant feelings were painful, why would many suttas, such as AN 4.41, say jhana is a pleasant abiding here & now (diṭṭhadhammasukhavihārāya).

While the 3rd translation of "pain in happiness" is the best of these three errors, it remains an error. The translation should be "potential suffering of the pleasant" or "unsatisfactoriness of the pleasant". "Sukha" here does not mean "happiness".

Note: "sukkham" in the Datthabba Sutta does not mean "happiness". The Datthabba Sutta is about vedana or feelings and the translation should be "the pleasant" or "pleasant feelings". The Datthabba Sutta says:

Pleasant feeling should be seen as suffering. Painful feeling should
be seen as a dart. Neutral feeling should be seen as impermanent.
Sukhā, bhikkhave, vedanā dukkhato daṭṭhabbā, dukkhā vedanā sallato
daṭṭhabbā, adukkhamasukhā vedanā aniccato daṭṭhabbā.

The Datthabba Sutta further says the wise person sees the impermanent state of neutral feelings.

In conclusion, the Datthabba Sutta does not infer: "there is no benefit in a pleasant sensation". Instead, the Datthabba Sutta simply says, in accordance with the Dhamma, that pleasant & neutral feelings are impermanent & are unsatisfactory; they are not perfect or permanent happiness; they are fraught with danger if clung to.

It follows the Dhammapada 203 says: "Nibbana is the supreme happiness" because true Nibbana is a permanent happiness that excludes the danger or suffering of clinging.

Thus Nibbana is a not a "pleasant feeling". The word "sukha" in Dhammapada 203 does not mean "pleasant feeling" but means "happiness"; just as the word "sukha" in the Datthabba Sutta does not mean "happiness" but means "pleasant feelings".

Thus only a fool would agree with the translation: "Who sees the pain in happiness" because: (i) there is no pain in Nibbana; and (ii) the Datthabba Sutta is not about "happiness" but is about "pleasant feelings".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why are pleasant feelings "stressful" & "unpleasant"?
I read the following in the internet:

All feelings are categorically classed as unpleasant in the
Dhamma...'Three feelings have been spoken of by the Blessed One: a
feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain & a feeling of neither pleasure
nor pain.,,,Now in what connection was this stated by the Blessed One:
"Whatever is felt comes under stress (yaṃ kiñci
vedayitaṃ taṃ dukkhasmin)"

Why are pleasant feelings "stressful" & "unpleasant"?
If all feelings are unpleasant, why are some feelings called "pleasant"?

This is what it says in MN 44 sutta.

"Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing,
friend Visakha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant in
changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in
occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without
knowledge."

Keep reading the sutta: ""Passion-obsession gets obsessed with pleasant feeling." ... "Passion lies on the other side of pleasant feeling.".... Regardless, the above answer does not appear to answer the question. I marked it down.

Greed for pleasant feelings is stressful because it is unpleasant when they disappear as they always do. Feelings are impermanent. Greed is never satisfied.

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

Giving up greed, a pleasant feeling is just pleasant.

MN44:27.2: “The underlying tendency to greed should be given up when it comes to pleasant feeling. The underlying tendency to repulsion should be given up when it comes to painful feeling. The underlying tendency to ignorance should be given up when it comes to neutral feeling.”

Yet even for the Realized Ones, free of greed, without wishes, experiencing bliss, stress remains.

MN121:12.1: They understand:  ‘Here there is no stress due to the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, or ignorance. There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’

And that slightest stress, conditioned by life, infuses what remains until the final extinguishment.

While i think this is not an answer, at least MN 44 appears to be understood.

Apologies. I had misunderstood the question as simple. The question asked is actually much deeper. My own understanding here extends only to MN121. Not being an arahant I can offer no more. The answer is updated.

Because, Brahman Element, feelings are conditioned, saṅkhārs, not real, not lasting, not to be bought under ones control, can not be made ones own: anicca. And what can not be regarded as own, changeable, inconstant, is stressful and subject to suffering.
Feelings are subjective and when ever taken as own, when ever pleased by what ever touch, someone perceives it as pleasing.

The Buddha discusses the range of possible pleasures and joys, and concludes by advocating a pleasure that goes beyond feeling: Bahuvedaniya Sutta — The Many Kinds of Feeling

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

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, world-binding trades or to nurish wrong pride, but for escape from this wheel]

i marked this answer down because: (i)  what is changeable, inconstant, is not necessarily stressful and subject to suffering; as taught in SN 22.1; and (ii) feelings or vedana are obviously not "subjective" because all Arahants experience feelings yet Arahants are free from subjectiveness or self. For example, all Arahants will feel the same pain if their limbs are sliced off by saws.

Who cares about Brahman Elements vedanas... not to speak about his slandering rants... where there is no touch there is no feeling.

You don't care about what is taught in SN 22.1? And how is one afflicted (ātura) in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

There might be some who still think it's of worth to give into Brahman Elements confused rants. May he do, think as he like and consider it not as an answer on his behave.

I suggest to reflect upon this: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/43196/what-is-the-destination-of-unenlightened-monk-reviling-noble-layperson

and this: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/43186/does-one-usually-need-to-earn-a-living-or-does-on-usually-want-to-earn-a-li

SN 36.11 says:

Good, good, bhikkhu! These three feelings have been spoken of by me:
pleasant feeling, painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant
feeling. These three feelings have been spoken of by me. And I have
also said: ‘Whatever is felt is included in dukkha [dukkhasmin;
locative case].’ That has been stated by me with reference to the
impermanence of formations. That has been stated by me with reference
to formations being subject to destruction … to formations being
subject to vanishing … to formations being subject to fading away … to
formations being subject to cessation … to formations being subject to
change.

The word 'dukkha' above refers to 'dukkha' as one of the three characteristics rather than 'dukkha' as meaning 'pain' or 'dukkha' as meaning 'suffering'.
Asian translators have no trouble with the different meanings of 'dukkha' but the Western translators appear to struggle and translate illogically. For example the Asians:

Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?
Unsatisfactory, O Lord. SN 22.59 translated from the Pali by N.K.G.
Mendis
"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification. Dhammapada translated from the Pali by Acharya Buddharakkhita

It appears SN 36.11 says anything that is felt is included within the characteristics of impermanence & unsatisfactoriness.
The  Geoffrey DeGraff translation of: "Whatever is felt comes under stress" appears to be an error. Feelings are not stressful to minds not attached to feelings, as stated in countless sutttas, such as Iti 44, MN 37, MN 38, MN 148, SN 22.1, SN 36.6, etc, etc, etc.

Stress is a feeling of emotional or physical tension. It can come from any event or thought that makes you feel frustrated, angry or nervous. Stress is your body's reaction to a challenge or demand.

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


text:
Do we have to let go the "Subha Sanna" completely?
Lord Buddha said that we should practise Asubha sanna (perception of the non-beautiful). Does it mean that we have to let go Subha sanna (perception of the beautiful) completely ? Are there anything that is Subha in this world?
As I know, The world is a Asubha thing. We can not find any subha thing in this world at all. So anything that is not related to the world is Subha. Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha help us to get rid of this world. That means they are Subha things. The conclusion is that we shouldn't have any Subha sanna towards anything other than Triple jems. Am I right?

The word subhasaññānuvattinī occurs exactly once in the five Nikayas and it warns of a danger:

Thig5.3:1.1: Due to improper attention,  I was racked by desire for pleasures of the senses.  I was restless in the past, lacking control over my mind.  Overcome by corruptions, pursuing perceptions of the beautiful, I gained no peace of mind.  Under the sway of lustful thoughts,  thin, pale, and wan, for seven years I wandered, full of pain,

Perceptions of the beautiful should not be confused with the third liberation:

AN8.66:3.1: Subhanteva adhimutto hoti.

AN8.66:3.1: They’re focused only on beauty.

The third liberation results from the heart's release by love.

SN46.54:12.9: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

The heart's release by love is mettācetovimutti, it is not the heart's release by the perception of beauty.
So although the Triple Gem is certainly beautiful, we should have proper attention towards the Triple Gem instead of merely perceiving them as beautiful.

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view. What two?  The words of another and proper attention.

I realise this is an old question, but would you happen to know why SN46 ceases at the dimension of nothingness?

@Nueromax, that's a great question probably not best answered in a comment on a post about beauty. I'd say that SN46.54 pertains to deep meditation and is limited by the scope of deep meditation. Deep meditation is conditioned. It has a beginning and it has an end. When it ends, MN121 may be useful: "They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance." There may be better answers

To seek refuge only in the Tripple Gems, good householder, is the quality starting with entering the stream of Dhamma, the quality possessed by those heading toward the Deathless.
Once this refuge has been gained, one can let go of the perception of attractiveness of all in the world of senses. But just to be sure, it isn't wise to let go before not having gained the haven, as it would just turn into desire for not-becoming, yet the path requires Bhava in a sense of gati, not agati.
Mudita
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]

Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta, and Asubha Vs Nicca, Sukha, Atta, and Subha mainly intend for monks, not for laypeople.
However, when you progress in the path you acquire these qualities gradually.

Morananussati has been praised for all by the Buddha, as well the reflecting of backwards in the world, good householder, and that there would be two different ways, that of lay and monks, is just a usually excusion. Truth, reason, decay and way is one.

Subha sometimes is used in a kusala context. For example, in 8 vimokkhas,
one of them is subha, and the commentaries explain subha there as:
1779 subha footnote from bodhi
Subhant’eva adhimutto hoti. Mp: “By this what is shown are jhānas based on extremely purified color kasiṇas, such as blue, etc.”
Mp points out that Paṭis, a canonical exegetical treatise, defines the emancipation on the beautiful as the four immeasurable states (loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity); see Paṭis II 39,14–26.
It seems that the first emancipation comprises the first two bases of overcoming; the second, the second two bases of overcoming; and the third, the remaining four bases of overcoming.


text:
let go of wanting to change the past in my meditation practice
I remark that, when I am doing my meditation practice, I am still clinging to want to change the past. To make short, due to parents who had their own special way of education, I had quite a difficult adolescence (little freedom, constant shouting and constant dissatisfaction from my parents despite having quite good scholar results and causing no major problems (no drugs, no smoking ...),  constant humiliation from my parents & my peers in middle & high school ).
It was unfair and it was cruel.
On an intellectual level, I understand I cannot change the past. But on a deeper level, I still wished I could have had a "normal" adolescence.
I feel that due to a low level of confidence, I missed some good opportunities.
And I am still clinging to this wish during my meditation practice (concentration on the breating). Could you give me some suggestions to help me ?
By the way, I do not know if this question belongs in this forum. If this is the case & you tell me, I will delete this question.
Edit after reading & thinking about the answers provided:
First, I want to thank you all.
Second, I had some epiphany after reading answers, thinking about them and listing to a meditation which was mentionned in one of the answers. I explain: in the meditation, the teacher speaks about a trip in which he was in a bus for nearly a day. He was stuck in a seat close to a place that was very smelly, and unfortunately, there was no other seat available. He first decided to focus on his breathing, but remarked after a few hours, that this had resulted in building tension. He remarked that he had used meditation to push the uncomfortable situation out of his mind. Once he  used meditation to open to the uncomfortable situtation, things went better. And I thought: Oh, this is exactly what I was doing. I used meditation to push uncomfortable thoughts & feelings ouf of my mind. In fact, I realized that I did not want to accept what I had suffered. I thought I had accepted but deep down I had not. So now in my meditation practice, I try to open up to uncomfortable feelings & thoughts.
Thank you all

The way I worked out this exact problem was just sat down with my parents especially my father and with calm mind without showing emotions talked to them about the way they treated me and what I expected them of. Once I had this talk I gave them a big hug and in my my heart generated the feelings of forgiveness and loving kindness. That is called as metta in buddhism. So thats how you let go of the past burden.

I am not a teacher nor do I understand Buddhist teachings to a great extend yet therefore my answer is more of a sympathising approach.
I myself was brought up in what I consider a narrowminded religious environment. And I can't deny I held a grudge against my parents for some things they did or said.
I guess what it comes down to is the idea: What if my parents treated me differently? Would I be better of? Would I be happier?
But in my humble opinion that does not withstand close examination.
If they treated you differently you would still need to pay rent. You would still need to work to eat. You would still catch the flu and suffer from fever. You would still have to suffer the pain of parting with things you hold dear.
Looking at it from the other side (here I have to speculate): I assume they fed you when you were hungry. They took you to the doctor when you were sick. They gave you shelter from the elements.
If it weren't for them, would you be able to live as healthy as you do? Would you be able to live in a peaceful environment as you do now?
This is not about being best friends. It's not about forgiving and forgetting just because you will otherwise be punished.
It is about being grateful for the help we received and wishing for other peoples happiness. Even when we consider them to be bad people.

Thanks a lot for your answer, to give more info: yes they fed me, took me to the doctor, ... did all the "material things" parents normally do. What was wrong was on the "feelings " side. They hated me (for reasons I can only speculate, maybe I was too "soft") whereas I wanted them to love me. So basically when you say I would have to pay the rent or work, well I have no problem with that. I just wish for them to love me. So yes if they had treated me differently, I still think I would have been happier.
That's the thing I would like to let go in my meditation practice. How do I do this ?

Find out why you are holding on to it. With asking this question here you told us how holding the rope tight hurts because your muscles cramp. You told us what you are holding so tightly and I guess you think you told us why, but actually you haven't or at least I still don't know.

I can only tell you how griping with your hands work. How the fingers encase the rope so it won't go away. I can try to show you reasons why it is not worthwhile holding on to it. How relaxing it will be for your hand to let go. There are 2 things I can not. Know why your griping it and make you letting it go.
There is a mismatch between how you feel things should be and how they really are. Find the reason for this and I am sure you will be able to let go.
The story of the fox user20010 gave is more or less what I try to find words for.

thanks a lot for your advice

and thanks for having taken the time to reply to my comments

The scripture Iti 74 says a child who practises Dhamma is superior to parents who do not practise Dhamma.
You cannot change the past.
However, you can clearly comprehend the immoral & wrong actions of your parents and then aspire to live in the opposite way.
You can aspire to not be like them, which means you treat other people in the manner you yourself wished you were treated.
In other words, you aspire to never ever repeat your parents mistakes & errors.
If you have some care for your parents, you can dedicate your efforts to your parents, as though to make merit for their sins.
As for 'gratitude to parents', the scriptures say children honor & venerate their parents who have been compassionate (rather than cruel) towards them. Refer to Iti 106.
Also, refer to my answer to this related question.

Case 2 of the Mumonkan
The Wild Fox
Every time Baizhang, Zen Master Dahui, gave a dharma talk, a certain old man would come to listen. He usually left after the talk, but one day he remained. Baizhang asked, “Who is there?”
The man said, “I am not actually a human being. I lived and taught on this mountain at the time of Kashyapa Buddha. One day a student asked me, ‘Does a person who practices with great devotion still fall into cause and effect?’ I said to him, ‘No, such a person doesn’t.’ Because I said this I was reborn as a wild fox for five hundred lifetimes. Reverend master, please say a turning word for me and free me from this wild fox body.” Then he asked Baizhang, “Does a person who practices with great devotion still fall into cause and effect?”
Baizhang said, “Don’t ignore cause and effect.”
Immediately the man had great realization. Bowing, he said, “I am now liberated from the body of a wild fox. I will stay in the mountain behind the monastery. Master, could you perform the usual services for a deceased monk for me?”
Baizhang asked the head of the monks’ hall to inform the assembly that funeral services for a monk would be held after the midday meal. The monks asked one another, “What’s going on? Everyone is well; there is no one sick in the Nirvana Hall.” After their meal, Baizhang led the assembly to a large rock behind the monastery and showed them a dead fox at the rock’s base. Following the customary procedure, they cremated the body.
That evening during his lecture in the dharma hall Baizhang talked about what had happened that day. Huangbo asked him, “A teacher of old gave a wrong answer and became a wild fox for five hundred lifetimes. What if he hadn’t given a wrong answer?”
Baizhang said, “Come closer and I will tell you.” Huangbo went closer and slapped Baizhang’s face. Laughing, Baizhang clapped his hands and said, “I thought it was only barbarians who had unusual beards. But you too have an unusual beard!”
I think you're looking at this backwards.  There is ultimately nothing that anyone can say that will help you.  Your past is your past.  How it impacts you in your present life is up to you to disentangle.  All of those feelings of regret, of wanting something to be other than it was, all of that is uniquely yours for 500 lifetimes unless you can find the key to liberation.  Fortunately, the fact that you're sitting puts you half way there already.
But what kind of sitting are you doing?  When we first start down the path of meditation, we can quickly become enraptured by the states it offers.  It can almost feel like those sits that aren't peaceful, tranquil, and transcendent are missed opportunities.  All of the distractions that we endure, all of those petty unresolved aspects of our personal history - we get agitated because they disrupt that bliss.  How can we become Buddhas if our pasts keep pulling us out of samadhi???
So many people stupidly ride an ox the foot of the hill when really they should be dancing with foxes in the mountains.
We all have our foxes and each one is a terrific opportunity to wake up.  Clinging to what could have been has a red face and a bushy tail. Keep sitting and looking at that clinging.  Make friends with it.  Get to know what it likes, who its friends are, and what it eats for dinner.  Sit with it.  Nourish it with your practice.  Feed it with emptiness.  Dance with it under the moon. And when it finally dies, I promise you that you'll want to give it a monk's funeral.

thanks a lot for bringing up the metaphor

I think that memories have to be explored and expressed warmly and strongly and emotionally and loudly when they are agitating you, and that you should not sit still, so find some forest or put on some music or find a friend or a worker who is good to talk to about these things, and express yourself. I have similar memories and they take time to abate, and expressing them without the constraints of society will give your mind some peace. Over time the memories will become less fresh in your head and your will fill your life with nicer memories which will replace them, and you will find that memories are like a sting or a cut or a depression, it's good to express feelings and also find better memories and goals and dreams to motivate you.
Having a good talk with a friend or a good shout about something when you are chopping some wood or shaking some trees or is the natural way to feel better, and it gives a good feeling after, and you need to do it as many times as you need to until your memories have an emotional outlet. Perhaps it takes 10/20 years, but it's better to express memories.
Buddha came from a very happy and serene and peaceful home. He only witnessed worldly hardships when he traveled away from his parents and his home. This gave him an advantage for studying spirituality, temptations, meditation, but Buddha's teachings are less developed than some of today's psychology for expressing traumatizing memories, because Buddha didn't allegedly have very many of them.
This means that you have a strong emotional barrier in your mind. Meditation is very good for mental focus and inner peace, although you can try modern methods of dealing with complex repressed memories which are trying to be externalized.
I'd recommend talking to a psychologist or an energy worker or a good friend or a tree or some rocks and telling them how you feel, so that you get the words out that you want to say. I expect that you want to express yourself on the subject and that has been suppressed, so it is trying to rise up. Scientology is generally corrupted, although there is a positive notion of going into early memories with a positive memory worker and finding what your memories mean to you.

thanks a lot for your time and your comment !

I hope this finds you well today.
Lots of good advice here addressing the roots, causes, conflicts, and how the sacred texts apply. But if you’ll indulge me, I’d like to step back and look at it terms of practice.
Think of it like, you’re getting a lot of good advice from doctors, and I’m just your buddy at the mental gymnasium.
There’s a Catch-22 will recurring thoughts. On one hand, they are disrupting your practice. On the other, the thoughts are not good or bad. They just are, and fully experiencing them is part of the way.
My Secular Buddhism 101 way to approach them, focusing on practice and not doctrine or dogma, is through the practice of noting. I don’t wanna put words in your mouth, so speaking generically, maybe categorize it as regret or reminiscing or obsessing about the past. Noting, then, is the first step in the process described by the three most powerful words in the universe: simply begin again. You note the thought, feeling, or sensation, and then remind yourself to simply begin again.
A good refresher is here:
https://mindfulnessexercises.com/noting-thoughts-to-see-where-the-mind-is/
Another good reference is the seven part Basics I course by Joseph Goldstein over at tenpercent.com
For my money, no one covers noting better than Joseph, and his writings, lectures, podcasts and what not are pretty easy to find.
I also wanna throw one more thing out there, that works for some people, others not so much, but definitely worth a try. I first heard it from the writer and teacher Jeff Warren,
https://jeffwarren.org/exploration/welcome-to-the-party/
Jeff’s technique is to take noting, apply some humor (which sounds counterintuitive for dealing with anything serious or traumatic), and welcome the thoughts to your session. For me, it is typically regret for past actions that I have not fully put aside. “Hello, regret, welcome to the party. Together, let’s simply begin again.”
One more pop culture quote that I think summarizes it. From Andy Prudhomme: The part of your mind that is thinking will try to tell you that more thinking is the answer. This is no different than any other social interaction. If you are a farmer, and your crop is struggling, the guy who sells seeds will tell you you need to buy better seeds. The guy who sells fertilizer will tell you that you need better fertilizer. And the guy who sells tractors will tell you that you need a new John Deere. Our mind does the same thing to us, and the thinking part of our mind tells us that we need to obsess and analyze and contemplate everything in our past. So, from a “training the mind“ standpoint, we are acknowledging the thinking part of our mind, asking it to walk with us, and simply beginning again.
Just wanted to look at it from a “how” instead of a “what” or “why” standpoint. I hope there’s something useful for you in here.
Be well and stay safe!

Metta practis, (starting ones session, after Venerations, with metta spreading, but also much of it best all the time) is the usual counterpart to overcome ill-will, good householder.
What ever meditation, trained without right view present, without gratitude, without metta, if even gaining concentration, would lead just to wrong concentration. So actually better to do not develope a wrong path. Right effort turns around right view, right resolve and virtue.
Ill-will toward ones parents, lack of gratitude, is a very grave sign of wrong view, young householder. No change to ever progress if ones beneficer aren't placed right in ones heart.
[note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, or other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]

look I do not want to enter in a argument, but they did very bad things, it was abuse (but not in a sexual way).  I have tried to mend the relation several times but they do not change. So it is difficult to feel gratitude, except if you tell me that it is required to feel gratitude for abusers to escape from the wheel. I do want to escape, but with authenticity (aligning myself with the truth)

Does good householder like to make progress, or stay in the wheel and wander on with this unfortune folk here you are caught? So simply don't argue, for it wouldn't be right anyway, if desire for better. Or go on and seek win.

Good householder wanted to come and it's much more common that ones chosen parents would kill one of. So in no way a change to be not obigated, indebted toward ones parent. Of course such does not mean to approve possible wrong, yet huge giving remains,nobody else did, nobody, for a child.

And yes, metta has to be developed even torward the most cruel abuser. As for right, those might be of help: Justice vs. Skillfulness

Aren’t the main questions there first what you remember your teacher expounding and then what your teacher said when you raised this very Question?
I don’t need to be a Buddhist to know there are broadly two types of meditation: transcendental and others.
Broadly, the “transcendental” part of TM is literal: the method moves above and beyond any idea of letting go, or wanting, change or past even while it’s letting go.
Broadly, other methods - possibly including Buddhist - concentrate on a subject for what can be learned from it. Concentrating on the breathing puts your teaching in the second group, though closer to TM than most.
Who doubts that if in meditation you are clinging to wanting to change the past, that’s broadly for two reasons.
The first would be that in the context of meditating, all the details in your Post were simply details with no bearing on the idea of the past, or of changing it, or of clinging.
Further, if you must mediate on a subject don’t you think that subject should be not the past, nor wanting to change it, but the concept of clinging?
Personally, I don’t think this Question belongs to Buddhism, unless someone’s suggesting Buddhism is most about meditation.


text:
Circular thoughts and their antidote
Did the Buddha give specific advice around circular thought patterns and perhaps an antidote.
I'm aware that there is a lot around mental proliferation but this seems more general.
Many Thanks

This is called Vitakka and Vicara in Buddhism in general.
Antidote for Vitakka and Vicara is discussed in Vitakkasantanasutta.
"When a monk is intent on the heightened mind, there are five themes he should attend to at the appropriate times. Which five?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html

The sutta reference is very useful. Thank you

Thank you for the feedback -)

Many of them are preceded by the famous “What if …”: What if I don’t get it right? What if I fail or it isn’t for me? What if this isn’t my chance? What if I’m rushing? What if they’re not my ideal partner? What if I don’t get it?

These seem to be very standard thoughts, nothing particularly circular about them. I understand that they might be unpleasant if not connected to some productive theme.
However and in regards to whatever there comes to be conception of 'I am', there being 'I am' there comes to be 'I am good' or 'I am bad', 'I am good/bad because of this/that', or 'May i be/not be/neither be nor not be/both be and not be, thus/otherwise, because of this/that'
In a sense it is all rooted in craving for good, aversion for bad, constantly trying to seek pleasure of the good, avoiding parting with good andalso avoiding meeting with the bad.
From desire fear is born, desiring the good one fears the bad. If one did not have desire one would not have fear, if no fear then lines of thought prompted by fear would not arise.
In general thoughts are good indication of the hindrances that are present, a lot of it is  desire based, some is doubt, some is worry, some is aversion and some is a sign of restlessness.
Removal of distracting thoughts is outlined in the Sutta and there are many good answers on how to overcome them on this board already if you look up previously asked questions.

Circular thought patterns are no different than any other aspect of samsara.  If you approach them with samatha meditation, not only do you get temporarily relief from their grosser manifestations, with a mind made malleable by seclusion, you put yourself in a place outside of your mundane, distracted mind where you can get some perspective as to what is causing these thoughts to arise and, with time, cut them off at their root.
This is Buddhism 101, really.  It's a fundamental lesson though one that everyone seems to overlook. Circular thoughts are an obstacle.  They aren't fundamentally different than someone with a pornography addiction, anger management issues, personal trauma, destructive personality quirks, or whatever other kind of ignorance, craving, and aversion our smaller minds are subject to.  The methodology for alleviating and uprooting these problems is all the same - samatha followed by vipassana, calm followed by insight.

Good householder,
Simply increasing right view and observing Silas, Silas, Silas, incl. right livelihood. But hardly one would go after the path, of course... only one without debts (transgressions) would be able to walk on, others are just busy in "fighting" off there debters to gain a little space to turn around. "Both hands steady not free to work because warding off from all sides." ...or try to learn techniques to develope firm household-equanimity... "Buddhists".
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel, will, for those after such]


text:
Is Samma Dithi Right understanding or Right view?
Name and expound on the methods meant for Samma-Dithi. Is it Right view or Right understanding?

Diṭṭhi in Pali literally means "sight", but here it is used to mean view, belief, dogma, theory, speculation.
Sammā diṭṭhi means Right View.
There are many other words in the PTS Pali-English Dictionary which may be used for "understanding" in different contexts, but diṭṭhi is not one of them.
From PTS Pali-English Dictionary on Diṭṭhi:

Diṭṭhi Diṭṭhi (f.) [Sk. dṛṣṭi; cp. dassana] view, belief, dogma,
theory, speculation, esp. false theory, groundless or unfounded
opinion.

From Pali Kanon: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines:

(lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative opinion,
insight.
If not qualified by sammā, 'right', it mostly refers to wrong and evil
view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right view,
understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; ditthi-visuddhi,
purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of insight).
Wrong or evil views (ditthi or micchā-ditthi) are declared as utterly
rejectable for being a source of wrong and evil aspirations and
conduct, and liable at times to lead man to the deepest abysses of
depravity, as it is said in A. I, 22:
"No other thing than evil views do I know, o monks, whereby to such an
extent the unwholesome things not yet arisen arise, and the
unwholesome things already arisen are brought to growth and fullness.
No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent
the wholesome things not yet arisen are hindered in their arising, and
the wholesome things already arisen disappear. No other thing than
evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent human beings at the
dissolution of the body, at death, are passing to a way of suffering,
into a world of woe, into hell." Further in A. I, 23: "Whatever a man
filled with evil views performs or undertakes, or whatever he
possesses of will, aspiration, longing and tendencies, all these
things lead him to an undesirable, unpleasant and disagreeable state,
to woe and suffering."
From the Abhidhamma (Dhs) it may be inferred that evil views, whenever
they arise, are associated with greed (s. Tab. I. 22, 23, 26, 27).
Numerous speculative opinions and theories, which at all times have
influenced and still are influencing mankind, are quoted in the
sutta-texts. Amongst them, however, the wrong view which everywhere,
and at all times, has most misled and deluded mankind is the
personality-belief, the ego-illusion. This personality-belief
(sakkāya-ditthi), or ego-illusion (atta-ditthi), is of 2 kinds:
eternity-belief and annihilation-belief.
Eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi) is the belief in the existence of a
persisting ego-entity, soul or personality, existing independently of
those physical and mental processes that constitute life and
continuing even after death.
Annihilation-belief (uccheda-ditthi), on the other hand, is the belief
in the existence of an ego-entity or personality as being more or less
identical with those physical and mental processes, and which
therefore, at the dissolution at death, will come to be annihilated. -
For the 20 kinds of personality-belief, see sakkāya-ditthi.
Now, the Buddha neither teaches a personality which will continue
after death, nor does he teach a personality which will be annihilated
at death, but he shows us that 'personality', 'ego', 'individual',
'man', etc., are nothing but mere conventional designations
(vohāra-vacana) and that in the ultimate sense (s. paramattha-sacca)
there is only this self-consuming process of physical and mental
phenomena which continually arise and again disappear immediately.
"The Perfect One is free from any theory (ditthigata), for the Perfect
One has seen what corporeality is, and how it arises and passes away.
He has seen what feeling ... perception ... mental formations ...
consciousness are, and how they arise and pass away. Therefore I say
that the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the
extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection and casting out of
all imaginings and conjectures, of all inclination to the 'vain-glory
of 'I' and 'mine." (M. 72).

It does not matter what word we use even though I tend to like the term "right view". You are forming views when you do not know something for sure so the best bet is to have the right view. Buddha enumerated 62 kinds of views. So if you read Brahamjala Sutta you can decide yourself what is the best terminology for this understanding.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN01.html

"(view) position", "(view) point", "stand", "taking right stand", might be usefull to understand "Diṭṭhi", good householder.
And what is "taking on a proper stand", to cultivate toward higher and liberation:

"And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."
— AN 10.176

The safe bet may help to cut down inner arguments against this proper stand, increasing gratitude.
[That's not given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]


text:
How do I relax thought-fabrication?
In the Vitakkasanthana Sutta the Buddha gives 5 ways to help calm the heightened mind. In Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation the fourth method is described as

he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard
to those thoughts.

Can some one unpack that a bit. How would I go about relaxing my thought-fabrication?
Many Thanks

You'll have to dive into the pali a bit to get more of an idea.
http://lucid24.org/mn/mn020/index.html#flink-9
citta-sankhara, mano-sankhara, vitakka-sankhara, in all likelihood are very similar if not identical.
First, backing up a bit into a higher level of thought complexity, vaca (vocalized speech) sankhara are vitakka (directed thought).
Basically, you can think of sankhara as essential constituent building blocks that make up that product.
So assuming vitkaka-sankhara are very similar to citta-sankhara, that would mean thoughts consist of perceptions and feelings as their underlying building blocks. If you can slow down the causes that form thoughts, then you would also slow down the thoughts themselves.
This is a very powerful way to deal with thoughts, because it requires sharper discernment to see the underlying building blocks that form thoughts.

In my opinion, this is basically practicing four Jhana by gradual training. For instance, a person who likes killing stops his habits gradually. Say stop killing humans, then animal then fish then insects, etc. Another example is substituting angry thoughts with lovingkindness thoughts.
==============
iv “If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts. When he gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. Just as a man walking fast might consider: ‘Why am I walking fast? What if I walk slowly?’ and he would walk slowly; then he might consider: ‘Why am I walking slowly? What if I stand?’ and he would stand; then he might consider: ‘Why am I standing? What if I sit?’ and he would sit; then he might consider: ‘Why am I sitting? What if I lie down?’ and he would lie down. By doing so he would substitute for each grosser posture one that was subtler. So too…when a bhikkhu gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts…his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
https://suttacentral.net/mn20/en/bodhi

By simply relaxing.  This stuff isn't complicated.  Just sit, go for a walk, or have a cup of tea.  I challenge you to tell me that you don't see the diminishment of thought fabrication if you sit down on the couch in silence and without moving for ten minutes.  What you will notice is that your thoughts seem to become louder for a time.  That's you simply noticing what was already there.  You were just too distracted to see.  After about the five minute mark, however, you'll start to see gaps in your thinking.  If you push to a half hour, I promise you that you'll see a marked decrease in your discursive thinking and thought fabrication.


text:
What are good Buddhist portals to conduct a survey on meditation?
I am working on wearable tech for meditation. I need to conduct a market research survey for the same. I understand that I cannot conduct a survey on the BSE site. I want to ask that what are good Buddhist portals or other social sites of Buddhist meditation where I can conduct a survey on meditation.

Please try the SuttaCentral Watercooler, DhammaWheel - perhaps Introductions, DharmaWheel - perhaps Lounge, The Buddhist Centre discussion, Facebook "Buddhism" groups etc.

Also the Buddhism Chat Telegram group. You can also ask on our very own Buddhism.SE chat room although not many people visit it.

This question is not displaying links to third party products or marketing websites, hence I feel that it is not spam (as flagged). However, this question is off-topic.

Try dhammawheel.net (14,742 members), dharmawheel.net (11,727 members). Also, have you tried the meditation apps? Insight timer has a large user base (they claim 18 million users). They have “groups” that focus on particular subjects, such as “The Science of Meditation” group (8.3k members). I hope this helps you.

Thankyou for your answer. I know of Insight Timer but not sure if they will allow me to conduct a survey on their groups.

You can ask them. Try Maddy Gerrard, Head of Publishing (Maddy at insight.co)

One    should not make an effort everywhere,
should not be another's hireling,
should not live dependent on another,
should not go about
as a trader in the Dhamma
Paṭisalla Sutta

[Not given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]

Dear Samana, We all have our own ways to share the Dhamma. I am a householder practicing Right Livelihood.

Selling Dhamma, make a living on the Gems? Such would be wrong livelihood, very wrong, good householder. Look for right, for own long term happiness.


text:
What is panna? Is it permanent?
Because panna (wisdom) is the understanding of anicca, dukkha and anatta, it leads to the cessation of ignorance, greed and aversion and therefore to Nirvana. Now Nirvana or the state of being enlightened is permanent, so panna must be too, mustn't it? The cessation of ignorance alone is not enough, because it could rise again, couldn't it? I mean it already happened one time...
So to hinder ignorance from rising again, panna must be permanent. This is how I always understood it. I always thought of it as an aspect of Nirvana, and therefore not a part of the impermanent (?) skandhas.
Now I read a text which says that panna is a sankhara. Aren't sankharas as the 4th skandha impermanent and cease to exist when entering Paranirvana?
So what is panna?
Thank you.

Light is movement of photons which vibrate within a certain frequency range and travel at the speed of light. If there there is no one present with eyes to sense light, is there still light? I would say yes.
Nibbana is a permanent phenomena (dhamma) which is like light. Even if there are no enlightened ones to experience it, it is still there.
From MN 49 with corrected translation from this answer:

That which could be known (Nibbana), is invisible, infinite, radiant
all round—that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on
earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the
gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of
abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all.

Also Ud 8.1-4.
But wisdom (panna) is different. It depends on the mind. If the mind ceases, then wisdom ceases. When the Buddha passed away, his wisdom ceased, but his teachings (Dhamma) which arose out of his wisdom, continue to exist through the suttas and the noble sangha.
So are the teachings (Dhamma) permanent or unconditioned? I would say no. If the suttas and the noble sangha disappear after many centuries or millennia (i.e. the end of the current Buddha sasana), then the teachings also disappear.
Some have asked if physical space is permanent or unconditioned. From Einstein's theory of general relativity, we know that physical space-time is conditioned.
So, in every case, we can see that only one phenomena is permanent and unconditioned and that is Nibbana. It is that which is experienced by the mind when it is free of defilements and fetters. It is not a mental idea or state of mind or state of consciousness.

Dear @ruben2020, This is how I think and I may be wrong. Light is the way that the photons are cognised by eye consciousness. If there's no consciousness, photons are just photons but not light. I know this is a deep topic for us. You can find a Sutta reference instead of a metaphor. I remember some of the content of a Sutta you can include here but couldn't locate it in Sutta-Central or Access-to-insight.

@Damith Well, that's just the convention of physics. Anyhow it's called "speed of light" not "speed of photons". Furthermore light is both electromagnetic wave and particle (photons). But usually we use the term "light" to mean visible light, ultraviolet light and infrared light. But we don't usually use "light" for other types of electromagnetic waves like radio waves, microwave, gamma rays etc.

But what is won then by me attaining enlightenment? There are still beings caught in Samsara, suffering. Do they get less and less with time, until there are no beings there anymore, so Samsara is extinguished completety and all what remains is Nirvana? Is that true? Othewise I don't see the sense of pursuing enlightenment. Because if Samsara would go on to exist forever, that means there is infinite suffering. If I attain enlightenment, a certain amount is subtracted from that infinite suffering. But it's still infinte (∞ - 100 = still ∞)

@Vinc What is won by you? The cessation of suffering. Plus you can help others along the way. There is no way to end suffering 100% in the universe, at least from Theravada's view.

sutta explain that panna [discernment] and consciousness are conjoined.

What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between them.

consciousness is to be understood and panna is to be developed.
developing panna one comes to understand consciousness, having understood consciousness one has developed panna.
Suppose a person attains full understanding of consciousness but lacks in the power of concentration. Suppose this person then dies without having attained Arahantship and is born again.
It is not same body that is born and it is not the same faculties that are consequently constructed but the body and faculties that come to be are a result of previous development.
There is no discernable point in the past where there was no delusion with a consequently discernable appearance of delusion.
Perfected Panna has such result that it always leads to the consequent perfection of the other faculties in no more than 7 births. The perfection of faculties results in extinguishment of conditions that lead to death & birth altogether.
Therefore if faculties had ever been brought to culmination in the past, then this birth wouldn't have occurred.

The panna of an arahant is permanent during the arahants lifetime, per MN 12, which says:

Sariputta, even if you have to carry me about on a bed, still there
will be no change in the lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom.

But because the mind of an arahant ceases when life ends, obviously, panna does not last forever. Therefore, ultimately, panna is impermanent.
Nibbana is an unconditioned independent element of nature that permanently exists forever. The suttas says regardless of how many Arahants abide in the Nibbana element, the amount of the Nibbana element never ceases, changes or fluctuates (AN 8.19).
But panna is a conditioned mental element that is impermanent. For example, when there is no arising of Buddhas, there is no real panna in the world. There are times when panna does not exist; such as when Dhammadhatu is suspended from BSE.

Thank you very much for answer. I am only wondering: Why then is Nirvana permanent, if there is no panna which hinders ignorance from arising again?

Nirvana is an external element. It is not something "mental". Nirvana exists permanently even when there is no awareness of it. For a crude metaphor, there is an underlying "stillness & peace" that pervades the whole universe. This is the Nirvana element.

Dear @Dhammadhatu, "The panna of an arahant is permanent during the arahants lifetime". This is not true because three marks of existence true for all the conditioned things, even for the panna mental factor (element) of an Arahant. Panna arise, exist, cease with the consciousness momentarily.

Please re-read my answer, which explained everything. Your idea of momentary consciousness is wrong because it does not affect the wisdom of an arahant. Regards

No, it's not nicca, but the final means for liberation. Pañña-vimutti. This path is for liberation, and for nothing else. Of course "knowledge about liberation" will be ones last and most helpful knowing, wisdom. Liberated, unbound, there is no more use of this, saṅkhāra of this raft.
May one investigate the heartwood-similie suttas on this account.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding traded, but for liberation only]


text:
What happens to consciousness/awareness when entering Paranirvana?
If consciousness/awareness as the 5th skandha is impermanent (?), shouldn't it cease to exist when entering Paranirvana?
But in SN 22.53 the Buddha says:

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then
owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there
is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed,
not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it
is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its
contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is
totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
world.'"

Here cuddlyable3 answers with a quote which says that:

Damien Keown states: Nirvana [...] involves a radically transformed state of consciousness which is free of the obsession with ‘me and
mine’
when a person attains nirvana, they are liberated from ordinary rebirth. When such a person dies, their physical body disintegrates
and their consciousness is said to be completely liberated. They are
not reborn in the ordinary sense. Their consciousness does not take
rebirth into a physical form
terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in the case of an Arahant, because those things—matter, sensation, perception, mental
activities, consciousness—with which the terms like ‘born’ and ‘not
born’ are associated, are completely destroyed and uprooted, never to
rise again after his death

Doesn't the last point contradict with the others? For me it makes much sense that consciousness is that which gets enlightened and that Nirvana is the state of free, liberated consciousness. I mean if everything what I am, even consciousness, which I think I ultimately am, vanishes, why should I pursue enlightenment then?
Thank you.

The question would be more correct if you use "after parinibbāna" rather than "entering Paranirvana". If you use the word "entering", it may give the idea that parinibbāna is another state (of mind, matter, or both). But the truth is nothing would be remain after parinibbāna.

I mean if everything what I am, even consciousness, which I think I ultimately am, vanishes, why should I pursue enlightenment then?
To end suffering.
Suffering pervades our lives, touching all that we relish. We spend our lives chasing the rebirth of past pleasures large and small. The first kiss leads to the second and then one day there are no more. This is the first noble truth, the truth of suffering.
The second truth is the origin of that suffering.

MN9:14-18.8: It’s the craving that leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, looking for enjoyment in various different realms. That is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for continued existence, and craving to end existence.

Consciousness comes and goes. It is a burden to be borne, yet we cling to it as precious. In seeking continuity of consciousness there is suffering.  Since consciousness arises, it must also die. Grasping at consciousness is therefore delusional, since it generates and perpetuates suffering.
"Everything what I am" is a lead weight. Why carry it?

But what is won then by me attaining enlightenment? There are still beings caught in Samsara, suffering. Do they get less and less with time, until there are no beings there anymore, so Samsara is extinguished completety and all what remains is Nirvana? Is that true? Othewise I don't see the sense of pursuing enlightenment. Because if Samsara would go on to exist forever, that means there is infinite suffering. If I attain enlightenment, a certain amount is subtracted from that infinite suffering. But it's still infinte (∞ - 100 = still ∞)

@Vinc because without enlightenment we add to the suffering of others.

The term "parinibbana" does not always refer to the ending of the life of an arahant. Parinibbana can also refer to here-&-now Nibbana, such as in SN 22.53, which uses the term or verb "parinibbāyati".  SN 22.53 refers to nibbana in the here & now, which is the destruction of craving.
Nibbana is not a state of consciousness but is an object (ayatana) of consciousness (Ud 8.1).
"Birth" & "death" are self-views. Arahants are free from birth & death. For example, MN 140 says:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
he yearn?

Enlightenment is pursued to end suffering; just as food is eaten to end the pain of hunger or a doctor is consulted when sick. Just because life eventually ends does not mean we stop eating food everyday. Similarly, just because life eventually ends does not mean we do seek real happiness & real peace in the here-&-now.
In summary, when life ends, consciousness, which is dependent upon the mind & body (SN 22.82), also ends (SN 22.85). Therefore, in the final Paranibbana of an Arahant or Buddha, as described in DN 16, the consciousness of the Arahant or Buddha ends, as described in SN 22.85.
But when Nibbana is attained in the here-&-now, consciousness does not end, as described in SN 22.53. The term "cessation" ("nirodha") does not mean the cessation of consciousness but means the cessation of ignorance & craving polluting consciousness. Refer to SN 22.5, which explains the meaning of "arising" ("samudaya") and thus "cessation"; as follows:

What is the origin of consciousness? Here, bhikkhus, one seeks
delight, one welcomes, one remains holding.
And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of consciousness?.... Here,
bhikkhus, one does not seek delight, one does not welcome, one does
not remain holding.

According to Iti 44:

And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is
released through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain
and, owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant &
the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is
released through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being
unrelished, will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding
property with no fuel remaining.

Ven. Thanissaro in his commentary of Iti 44, stated:

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

This means that consciousness ceases on parinirvana (i.e. when no fuel is remaining).
Nibbana with fuel remaining is when the arahant is living, and his five aggregates are still functioning, but they are no longer clinging aggregates (SN 22.48) i.e. they are no longer defiled.
So, living arahants still have sankhara. What they do not have is latent tendencies (anusaya), defilements (kilesa), effluents (asava), fetters (samyojana), craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana).
"Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released" (SN 22.53) simply refers to consciousness that is no longer defiled i.e. consciousness that is not a clinging aggregate - also please see this question. It does not mean that it is permanent. Upon parinirvana, it will cease - I'm referring to the Nibbana element without fuel remaining. Please also see this answer for details.
In MN 49, there was a "consciousness without surface" or "consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round" (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) that some people imagined to be a permanent consciousness of sorts, which turned out to be a mistranslation, according to the answers of this question. The sutta was talking about Nibbana. I've also explained this in this answer.
What about the notion that "their consciousness does not take rebirth into a physical form"? The idea of the consciousness of an enlightened one continuing to exist after death in some form without rebirth is not part of the teachings of the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs).

Hello ruben2020, here (buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17639/what-is-difference-vedic-consciousness-versus-pali-text-terms-deathless-aw/40979#40979) (I don't have enough reputation to post the comment there) you write about Nirvana: "It is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements." This mind which you speak of, is that mind also made out of the 5 skandhas and is therefore impermanent? So can Nirvana only experencied when one is enlightened AND alive? Or does this mind continue to exist after the death of an enlightened being?

@Vinc No, the 5 aggregates cease at death for the enlightened - Unbinding element without fuel remaining. Please see Iti 44 in this answer.

Any form of existence after parinirvana is "an inconceivable" in the Buddha's Dharma. This is equally true of Theravada as it is of Mahayana here. The Buddha, "after death," is inconceivable. The Buddha's mind, after death, is inconceivable. The Buddha's mind, before death, is also inconceivable. The Buddha questions Vesālī:

“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as form?”
“No, sir.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as feeling … perception … choices …
consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as in
form?”
“No, sir.”
“Or do you regard the Realized One as distinct from form?”
“No, sir.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as in feeling … or distinct from
feeling … as in perception … or distinct from perception … as in
choices … or distinct from choices … as in consciousness … or as distinct from consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as
possessing form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as one
who is without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, sir.”

(Anurādhasutta SN 44.2)
The Buddha is not defined via five aggregates like a sattva is. This is before even parinirvāṇa. After parinirvāṇa, the Buddha is also not defined via five aggregates. With this in mind, we can go to the 25th Parīkṣā of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā with the Madhyamakaśāstra commentary from ~2-400 AD by Venerable Vimalākṣa (青目, an alternate Sanskritization is "Piṅgala" )

25:17 The Tathagata, after parinirvāṇa, is neither said to exist nor not to exist, nor is he said to both exist and not exist, nor neither exist nor not exist.
25:18 The Tathagata, presently, is neither said to exist nor not to exist, nor is he said to both exist and not exist, nor neither exist nor not exist.

"Presently" here should be taken as "while alive."

25:19 Between nirvāṇa and the world, there is not the slightest differentiation. Between the world and nirvāṇa, there is also not the slightest differentiation.
25:20 From the true apex of nirvāṇa to the apex of the world, like this, there are two apices with not a sliver of difference between them.
25:21 "Existence or nonexistence after parinirvāṇa," et cetera, "the boundaries of existence," "constancy," et cetera -- all (of these) views depend on nirvāṇa being in the future or in the past.

Venerable Vimalākṣa comments:

(1) "The Tathagata after parinirvāṇa exists," or (2) "The Tathagata does not exist," or (3) "The Tathagata both exists and does not exist," or (4) "The Tathagata neither exists nor not exists," or (5) "The world is finite," or (6) "The world is infinite," or (7) "The world is both finite and infinite," or (8) "The world is neither finite nor infinite," or (9) "The world is constant," or (10) "The world is inconstant," or (11) "The world is both constant and inconstant," or (12) "The world is neither constant nor inconstant" -- these in three kinds are twelve views. When after the Tathagata's parinirvāṇa he is (1) existent or (2) nonexistent, et cetera (3-4), those four views arise dependent on (the notion of) nirvāṇa. When the world is (5) finite or (6) infinite, et cetera (7-8), those four views arise dependent on (the notion of) the future. When the world is (9) constant or (10) inconstant, et cetera (11-12), those four views are dependent on (the notion of) the past. Whether the Tathagata after parinirvāṇa exists or does not exist, et cetera, is inconceivable, and nirvāṇa is also the same. Like the origin and destiny of the world, if it is finite, infinite, constant, inconstant, et cetera, it is inconceivable, and nirvāṇa is also the same. Consequently, we say that the world and nirvāṇa are not different.

Āyuṣmat Nāgārjuna's Kārikā continues.

25:22 If all phenomena are empty, what is finite, infinite, both finite and infinite, or neither finite nor infinite?
25:23 Why is there the one and the many? Why is there the constant, and inconstant, and both constant and inconstant, and neither constant nor inconstant?
25:24 All phenomena being inconceivable is the cessation of the frivolous ponderings. To no person and in no place has the Buddha ever spoken.

Venerable Vimalākṣa comments again:

All phenomena at all times of every variety conform to
dependent origination. All in all, they are empty, and thus they have
not their own natures (自性, svabhāva). Which body exists to be the same
as the soul? Which body exists to be different than the soul? Thus
proceeding are the sixty-two demonic views. Each and every one within
emptiness is untenable. When all existence completely ceases,
frivolous ponderings are entirely gone. When frivolous ponderings are
entirely gone, it is because we have penetrated the true aspect of the
many phenomena and attained the tranquil path. Hearkening back to the
chapter on causality, if we inquire into the many phenomena, they are
neither existent nor nonexistent, nor are they both existent and
nonexistent, and nor are they neither existent nor nonexistent. This
is called 'the true aspect of all phenomena.' It is also called 'the
true nature of the phenomena,' 'reality,' and 'nirvāṇa.' Therefore,
the Tathagata at no time, in no place, to no persons, ever spoke of
nirvāṇa as with particularized characteristics. When all existence has
entirely come to an end, frivolous ponderings have ceased.

(Madhyamakaśāstra T1564.34c14)
Which directs us back to the OP inquiry: What happens to consciousness when entering parinirvāṇa? It ceases.

Of all forms of disease, none is greater than that of having a body —
he extinguished the body. Of all forms of torment, none is more severe
than that of having a calculating mind — he erased it and submerged in
the vacuous. The mind is taxed by the body; the body is burdened by
the intellect. The two pull each other, turning like a wheel on the
endless road of misery. It is said in the sutra, “The intellect is
poison, the body is shackles. Because of them the quiet silence of
liberation remains beyond reach; they are the cause of all
tribulations.”
The Perfect turned his body into ashes and extinguished his intellect,
he relinquished his form and discarded his reason. Within, he
abandoned the stirrings of illumination; without, he put to rest the
basis of misery. Transcendent, perfectly free from all existents;
boundless, he became great and vacuous. Tranquil, inaudible, clear,
non-manifest, mysteriously gone forever into a destination unknown.
When a lamp goes out its flame is extinguished, the oil and the flame
gone all at once.
This is nirvana without remainder. In the words of a sutra, “The five
aggregates are no more, like a flame extinguished.”
[...]
The terms “with remainder” and “without remainder” are only external
appellations for nirvana, conventional designations for the divergent
modes of the sages’ responding to things.
[...]
As for these (two) appellations (of "with remainder" and "without remainder"), they are established to indicate the
various modes of sagely response. When the Sage manifests traces, we
call this “arising”; when he makes them vanish, we call this
“cessation.” His “arising” is referred to as nirvana “with remainder,”
his “cessation” as nirvana “without remainder.” All along both
appellations — “with” and “without remainder” — remain rooted in the
nameless. Surely the nameless will take any name? Thus, the Perfect
becomes a square when he inhabits a square, a circle when he stops in
a circle, a deva when among devas, a human being when among humans. To
become a deva or a human being in accordance with circumstance is
surely not something that devas or humans could do. It is precisely
because he is neither a deva nor a human that he can become one or the
other.

(Venerable Sēngzhào Zhào's Essays T1858, translator unknown by poster, published by BDK as Three Short Treatises by Vasubandhu, Sengzhao, and Zongmi)
Though the Buddha's mind ended upon parinirvāṇa, he was never identified as, with, or in his mind to begin with. When I say "to begin with," I mean "after the bodhimaṇḍa," after he touched the earth in response to Mara, the godling prince. Nothing changes for the Tathāgata when form, consciousness, etc., ends, because he has already discarded, transcended, and escaped all of these.
In the Sarvāstivādin Mahāvibhāṣa ("The Great Commentary" of the Sarvāstivādin Śrāvakas), it explains nirvāṇa using some clever wordplay: "Vāna" means forest and "nir" means escape.
As it is the escape from the forest of the aggregates,
it is called nirvana.
When we ask a question like "Is the Buddha aware after parinirvāṇa," we are trying to pin the Tathāgata down, to identify him, using the aggregates by which ignorant sentient beings are bound. This can't be done.
Overlong, but hopefully helpful in some way.


text:
Why is there a Miscellaneous chapter in the Dhammapada?
Chapter 21 of the Dhammapada is titled Miscellaneous or Varied Verses or similar depending on the exact translation. Why do all the other chapters have descriptive headings and themes such as Flowers and Chapter 21 just has this generic title and generic theme?

Great question. I'm really interested in hearing the answer. I think @Dhammadhatu might know the answer. He has a vast scholarly knowledge.

@ruben2020 thanks for that. I didn't realise that the chapter headings were added so much later. I guess that makes sense as it was an oral tradition for a long time and headings are more of a written thing

thank you for you kind expression of faith however i can't answer this question definitively

I can only speculate. If we examine the preceding & proceeding chapters:

Maggavagga is about the Path and verses 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 285 and 289 all include the word "the path", while verses 283, 286, 287 & 288 are about when the path is not practised.

Nirayavagga is about Hell and every verse is related to the chapter title of hell.

As for the Pakinnakavagga: Miscellaneous, I would classify its verses as follows:

Verses 290 to 295 appear related to each other, which appear to be about higher happiness and freedom from cankers, unwholesomeness & suffering.

Verses 296 to 301 appear to be about another collection of related general practices.

Verses 302 appears to be about a separate topic of certain unique difficulties & sufferings.

Verses 303 to 305 appear to be related to the fruits of virtue.

In conclusion, at least unlike the preceding & proceeding chapters, it appears there are four different categories of teachings in the Pakinnakavagga; thus it is called Miscellaneous.
While I do not know the Dhammapada very well, similarly, I always wondered why verses 153 and 154 were included in the Jaravagga about Old Age.
As Ruben2020 said, often sutta titles are not directly related to the sutta subject matter. For example, the 2nd sermon (SN 22.59) is called Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta yet the word "lakkhana" is not found in the sutta or in any related sutta. While the term "Three-Characteristics" is inherently used in Buddhist discussion, this term actually never exists in the suttas. Based in AN 3.136, the "Three-Characteristics" should probably be called the "Three Natural Lawful Elements" (dhammaniyāmatā sā dhātu) or similar.

Thank you for this.

You're welcome. Regards

I up-voted this answer over the answer by @ruben2020 because of the details included. However, in my opinion, both say essentially the same thing: 'Noone knows'. The monks who organized the Dhammapada did it for reasons that are now lost in time.

The Dhammapada was organized by the monks within a few centuries after the Buddha's passing away. They also wrote the commentaries.
There is no mystical or supernatural or significant reason for the naming of the chapters, other than the reason that it was named so because the monks who compiled the Dhammapada decided to use this name.
They probably called it "Miscellaneous" because they put verses into it that did not fit into other themed chapters.
I do not have credible historical sources to back this claim.

My person thought maybe also give another smart opinion one could buy in, but then thought maybe just tell that it would be good to have a "Miscellaneous" tag for questions...
Maybe

In those who leave undone what should indeed be done but do what should not be done, who are conceited and unmindful, moral intoxicants increase....

...helps to gain some heartwood from the answer.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding entertainments but for release from this wheel]