text:
Is meditation really about right brain vs. left brain?
I kind of snuck up on the back door to meditation and mindfulness. It started with me reading "The Master and His Emissary" by Iain McGilChrist, about eight years ago while camping on the beach in Kauai. The book by the renowned psychiatrist talks about about how our brain is divided into two separate brains that talk to each other, but function differently. He tosses out some ideas about how left brain tends to dominate right brain, but right brain is the master and left brain is the emissary. Left brain thinks it's running the program, and discounts right brain, such that most of the modern people are running on purely left brain.
A few months later a friend suddenly died, then my brother. I found myself deeply hurting and confused at a level I'd never experienced before. I had heard of mindfulness, and decided to give it a try. I found almost immediate relief from this psychological pain I was experiencing, and have been a mindfulness practitioner now for eight years. I was quick to see the correlation between McGilChrist's ideas and those of mindfulness, so I've always had this understanding when reading dharma literature, and I've read a lot. It seems to me that what meditation and enlightenment masters teach is essentially right brain/left brain asymmetry. We quiet the talkative left brain so that we can hear the wisdom of the right brain.
So, am wondering if others see things this way as well?

it’s important to understand that meditation impacts both the left and right hemispheres of the brain. It strengthens the “corpus callosum,” the bundle of nerves that connects the two hemispheres, leading to a more balanced and integrated use of both brain halves. This results in enhanced creativity, better focus, deeper thought, improved mental health, and clearer thinking.
However, from a Buddhist perspective, meditation is not just about the physiological effects on the brain. The primary goal of Buddhist meditation, such as Vipassana, is enlightenment. It’s a practice that cultivates mindfulness and insight, helping practitioners understand the true nature of reality.
On the other hand, “Samatha” type meditation, which existed in ancient India as part of yoga and other techniques, focuses on calming the mind and developing concentration. These practices can be very helpful for stress relief and relaxation.
So while meditation does have effects on brain activity and can help balance the right and left brain, its ultimate purpose in Buddhist practice goes beyond these physiological benefits. It’s a tool for spiritual growth and understanding.

Good points! Think I'd have to agree.

I did not read the book by Iain McGilChrist, however, current research into meditation and its effects on the brain indicated that both the right and left hemisphere of the brain are activated.
In addition, my readings of research into vision, perception, attention and consciousness in the field of neuroscience indicate that higher level consciousness involves a complex yet coordinated interplay between various parts of our brain as shown in this study and other studies into agnosia. If we assume meditation is a form of training to achieve higher consciousness then it would be logical to assume that both the right and left hemisphere of our brain are equally important.
Personally, I suspect meditation is about achieving a harmonious state and communication between both hemispheres. It may look asymmetrical on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) but that’s simply because both hemispheres evolved to handle different functions. Just as our hands and legs evolved differently for different task, no one would want to function without one or the other.

Yes, I think of "natural awareness" as being a state or condition in which the left and right become more balanced, rather than left overriding right.

Wisdom is not just a function of brain. There is a wisdom of heart , wisdom of intestines, wisdom of kidneys , wisdom of feet, wisdom of hands etc . Therefore it is not right to say that meditation only caters to left brain and right brain. Advanced meditation involves whole body from feet to the brains. It unites left brain and right brain and center. Apart from left brain and right brain there is a center as well which science has ignored.

Yes! Thanks! Whole body!


text:
Who is the most powerful god according to Buddhism?
In Buddhism, gods are acknowledged to exist. So, according to Buddhism, who is considered the most powerful god?

May I know what is your definition of powerful? Wise? Omnipotent? Omniscient?

There are like ~330 million gods (excluding Brahmas) and their king is considered very powerful. Which is the Shakra.

{In Buddhism, gods are acknowledged to exist. }, yes. But not some strange beings. Just some living forms of consciousness with grater wealth of happiness.

It could be a being called the Mahabrahma or Great Brahma.

"There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to
other things, and who on four grounds proclaim the self and the world
to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal. And owing to what, with
reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim
their views?
"There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is
contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara
Brahma-world.7 There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture,
self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they
continue thus for a long, long period of time.
"But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While
the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a
certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the
exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and
re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made,
feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in
glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.
"Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns):
'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment,
due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their
merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and
re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There
they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving
through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long,
long period of time.
"Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is
the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings
might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these
beings have come.'
"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be
Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the
reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here
after him.'
"Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who
re-arose there after him.
"Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come
to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has
gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and
right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration
that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately
preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were
created by him, by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the
Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the
Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the
Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable,
eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like
eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to
this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'
"This, bhikkhus, is the first case.
DN 1

Note:
7. The "world of streaming radiance," the sixth of the fifteen
planes in the fine-material world (rūpaloka), the lowest order to be
exempt from the onset of world destruction. The Brahma-world mentioned
later is destroyed by the conflagration but reappears at an early
stage.

It's debatable what he meant by gods. Is he including Brahmas or not?

All Gods are not worth calling Self because becoming God leads to rebirth , ageing , death and whole mass of suffering. There are Gods with different responsibilities. There is no one God.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is ‘Wasawaththi Mara’ a demon or some type of god?
Mara is not considered a positive entity in Buddhism. Is ‘Wasawaththi Mara’ a god or a demon? I heard he is one of the powerful gods. Is that true?

The word "Wasawaththi" appears almost nowhere on the internet. I guess it's a non-standard or phonetic transliteration to the Latin alphabet.

In Sri Lanka, Wasawaththi Mara is used for Mara sometimes. And considered as king of hell and, a being powerful to some degree. Even some gods(not very powerful gods) are afraid of him.

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


text:
What are the life expectancies (ages) in the different realms of the gods?
In Buddhism, there are a few realms that exist. Does each realm have the same life expectancy, or does it vary from realm to realm?

There are 31 realms around one human world. Every realm has different life expectancy.

Look here https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/31_planes_of_existence .

Different realms have different ages. But none of them lasts forever. There is realm spontaneous rebirth. Some states of existence extend to eons. No matter how long the realm exists it is not worthwhile to call it self.


text:
Did Buddha comment on Hindu incarnations like Krishna Rama etc?
Just wondering, did the Shakyamuni Buddha say anything about Rama or Krishna especially, because he and only he was deemed to be fully awakened by Hindus. He was awakened (may not be fully) is kinda evident from his teachings from Bhagavata Geeta too.

Krishna is not mentioned in the Buddhist scriptures

Related: Is Krishna a demon?

Related: Did the Buddha make any reference to Krishna and Gita?

No.
Story of Krishna and Rama are fictitious stories.
In fact Rama was  partly mentioned as buddhas past life in jataka katha.
Even the concept of Ishvara(GOD) was not there. ´ekeshvarvad(theory of single GOD) and sarveshvarvad(theory of omnipresent GOD) was later development, in Hinduism as well as Mahayan buddhism.
So obviously the theory of their incarnation should have come  even later.
However initial notion of non-dualism ( brahman) was there even before buddha. The famous sage Uddalak,( or his son swetketu) was one of Buddhas teacher. So obviously the concept mentioned in Chandogya upnishad and  Brihadaranyak upnishad were prevailing in buddhas time too.
And what buddhas said is there nibbana is going beyond that stage of non-duality.
Bhikkhu sujato says udaka ramaputta is rishi udalaks liniage.

Doesn't Ghata Jataka clearly mention Krishna?


text:
Can we generalize paticca samuppada?
I came across this article by a long time contributor of this forum. In particular, the article mentioned a definition of paticca samuppada (PS) in Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary

'dependent origination', is the doctrine of the conditionality of all physical and psychical phenomena,

The article proceeded to attempt to position this as a general theory explaining the basis for all phenomena.
Qn 1: Is there anything inherently wrong with generalizing dependent origination or PS into a theory of conditionality?
FYI, there is a post regarding the appropriateness of treating PS as a law of conditionality. Note that in science, a law is a description of a phenomena (that is scientifically proven) while the article mentioned above is attempting for a general theory of conditionality i.e. to explain the why. (Although the article mentioned principle but I think we can forget it; I don’t think there is anyway to prove it scientifically).
My question is not on the appropriateness as a law but instead as a general theory. Reason for my uncertainty is as follows:

PS was taught by the Buddha in the context of explaining the arising of suffering.
In general, physical phenomena have a certain range of possible outcomes. For example, a sapling may or may not grow into a tree or a forecasted rain may or may not occur. In fact, probability is the way to describe the quantum world. But the way PS is explained traditionally, When this exists, that comes to be. With the arising of this, that arises indicates a certainty in outcome, therefore:

Qn 2: How can the certainty alluded in PS be reconciled with the probabilities in outcomes we see in reality?
Personally, I am neither for nor against this generalization of PS into a theory of conditionality. Thanks for sharing of any insights.

@Jayarava I wonder if you would be kind to give your thoughts on my question since you are the author of the above blog article. It will be enlightening to all readers to have your insights. Thanks so much!

In Mahayana understanding, Paṭiccasamuppāda is a teaching about the automatic development of the materialistic (entity-obsessed, reifying) mind, culminating in the emergence of the notion of self.
Whoever tries to present Paṭiccasamuppāda and indeed the entire Buddhism as the teaching of causality completely misses the point. Buddhism is a teaching of liberation through practical transcendence of the conceptual framework of the subjective reality arising as a result of Paṭiccasamuppāda.
Causality plays a methodological role in Buddhism because attaining the liberation requires undoing effects of certain causes, and it depends on beneficial influence of other causes, that's why the teaching on karma and cyclic tendencies must be understood and implemented, sure.
But the core of the Realization has nothing to do with causality, otherwise Nirvana would still be subordinate to Samsara, while in fact Nirvana is famously unconditioned which is to say it transcends causality.
So, no, Paṭiccasamuppāda cannot be generalized like that.
Idappaccayatā though is a different animal altogether. It is indeed a more abstract and more generic teaching focusing on the relationship between this and that. Once again, people studying Buddhism assume this refers to causality just because it says when this comes to be that comes to be and so on.
However I still think it misses the point. In my understanding, the relationship between this and that it describes is the relationship of implication. When the concept of beauty comes to be, it implies the notion of ugliness -- that kind of relationship. Why? Because this relationship is the key to how in the course of Paṭiccasamuppāda the notion of external and internal, or objective and subjective, evolve in lockstep thanks to the mechanism of idappaccayatā.
So here, once again, I regret that so many people miss the mark and misinterpret what I see as the most insightful, most wonderful part of Buddha's discovery.
I hope this explanation answers Part 2 of your question as well. The reasonI idappaccayatā is formulated with certainty is because it does not speak about causality, it speaks about relativity of mental constructs which is in the domain of information theory or logic, not physics!

Entire teaching of Buddha isnt certainly causality but it is a very important part in the network of teachings. Its importance cannot be uderstated.

The Buddha's focus was empirical and soteriological, not ontological or metaphysical, as evidenced by the following sutta quotes.
The Buddha was only interested in what would end suffering permanently.
Dependent origination is not meant to be generalized.
The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow:

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with
poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide
him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow
removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble
warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't
have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the
man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or
short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or
golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city...
until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow
or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was
wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I
know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or
cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with
which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a
peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which
I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a
langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed
until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a
common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander
arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown
to him.
"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life
under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The
cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists
nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still
remain undeclared by the Tathagata.
Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
Acintita Sutta

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."
Sabba Sutta

Earth , water , fire, air and space are the physical components of reality. They have conscious representatives. In the sutta ,root of all things ,Buddha refuses to identify with Earth , water ,fire , air and space. Dhamma was clear to him. Whether physical or psychical ,dependent origination applies to all ,that is why it is not good to identify with them. Dependent origin is not a theory , it is a Dhamma or undisputeable Truth or a reality. If this happens then that happens.
In physical world many things are determined probabilistically  but in dependent origination there is certainty because it does not deal with probabilistic ideas in the first place. If there is ignorance then volitional formations are bound to come. Dependent origination talks only about origin and cessation of suffering and nothing else.

Dependent origination (or dependent arising or any other relevant translation) of the pali and sanskrit equivalents is already itself generalizing principle about the conventional reality. Since the focus in Buddha's teachings is on removal of suffering, the particular case of 12 links is used to demonstrate how dependent origination works. Thats a particular case. The principle of dependent origination is held to be the law of conventional reality- as such it is a generalized law.

What is conventional reality ?

How do you explain why as a generalized law it fails to account for the probabilities in outcomes that we see in reality. From earthquakes to gene expression, the observations don't match up.

@Desmon Probabilities in outcome- a range of possibilities- isnt real. The actual which happens that is real. Probability and probabilities arent real. They are theoretical constructs of a very different system. Even in that system, laws govern and restrict - nothing happens out of anything. The generalized law does not fail to account for reality. But your hunt for probabilities in realities is like forcing football to talk about wickets. Two different things. Terminologies of two different systems which you are conflating.

@DheerajVerma I would suggest readings on Two-Truths. That would be better help then me explaining a very big thing in comments.

Although the actual outcome is what matters but probabilities and risks have direct effects on people’s behaviour. It’s the reason why people are encouraged to fasten their seat belts or discouraged from drinking and driving. I am upvoting your answer as I believe we are on the same page that the law does account for reality....it’s a question of explaining the mechanism.

Yes and that is what I meant. So glad I could express it in the way you got it!!! These things do matter.

"There is no need to know the entire sequence of factors [in dependent co-arising] in order to put an end to suffering and stress. A person merely needs to focus on a particular factor or relationship within the sequence — whichever is easiest to focus on — and to apply knowledge in terms of the four noble truths to that spot. This is why the Buddha, in teaching the way to the end of suffering and stress, did not have to explain the entire sequence every time to every student. He could focus simply on whichever factor or set of factors was most transparent to the student, recommend a relevant meditative practice, and that would be enough for the student to bring suffering to an end."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "The Shape of Suffering: A Study of Dependent Co-arising" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/ShapeOfSuffering/Section0005.html


text:
Is Nibbana a "Realization"?
I read the following on the internet:

But the core of the Realization has nothing to do with causality,
otherwise Nirvana would still be subordinate to Samsara, while in fact
Nirvana is famously unconditioned which is to say it transcends
causality. The first time it [Nirvana] is perceived is referred to as a realization aka awakening to a truth never seen before.

What Pali or Sanskrit words in Buddhism are usually used to mean 'Realization'? Is Nirvana a Realization? Is Realization a nama-dhamma (mental phenomena) or can it be an asankhata-dhatu (unconditioned phenomena)? Can Realization be unconditioned & have nothing to do with causality? What Pali or Sanskrit words in Buddhism are usually used to refer to attaining the experience of Nibbana?

In the Theravāda tradition, vipassanā is a practice that seeks "insight into the true nature of reality"

Please highlight "the core of" as well. Otherwise you are making it look like I said realization itself has nothing to do with causality. Here "the core" was a reference to the object of the realization aka Nirvana. I didn't use the word "object" because Nirvana is beyond subject/object separation, so I used the word "core" instead.

Sanskrit word for Nibbana is Nirvana. Nirvana means end of suffering. Although both words mean the same but the end result is different. Buddha says cessation of feelings and perceptions is Nibbana. But in Hinduism nirvana is merging into one undivided consciousness which is considered pure and blissful.
Realisation means becoming aware of some fact. Without realisation you can not attain Nibbana. Realisation that you are not body , you are not feelings , you are not perceptions, you are not choices, you are not consciousness.
I have not met anyone who has attained Nibbana. There are people who claim to enlightened but they are not fully realised.
Nibbana is said to be unconditioned. Even that is not self. Nibbana is unborn , unbecoming , uncreated , unoriginated and unformed. How can causality affect anything which is unborn ? Nibbana is escape from born , becoming, created , originated and formed.

how do you know the end result is different?  the words may be different but the actual difference is what?

@blue_ego I have already said what is the difference. I know because I have read both Hindu and Buddhist literature.

What Pali or Sanskrit words in Buddhism are usually used to mean 'Realization'?
Without using a dictionary I think the English word "realize" has two meanings:

Literally, "to make real" or "to actualize" -- e.g. "he realized his objective" -- where the word "real" to me means, literally or etymologically, "thing-like" or "tangible"
Figuratively, "to understand" -- e.g. "I realized what you were saying"

When it's used in the context of Buddhist "enlightenment" I think that it's the second meaning, and that it's a one-word summary of what's described in more detail in SN 56.11:

‘This is the noble truth of suffering.’ Such was the vision, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and light that arose in me regarding teachings not learned before from another.

So it's Pali words like ñāṇa ("knowledge, understanding"), paññā ("wisdom; knowledge; insight"), vijjā ("higher knowledge; science").
Is Nirvana a Realization?
A better question might be, "do you understand it?"' -- or, referencing SN 56.11 again, has it "been understood?" (i.e. using the "perfect tense" to denote a completed action).
English-language grammar distinguishes nouns and verbs, i.e. "things" and "actions" -- and to say that Nirvana is a noun ("it is a realization") implies that it's some kind of thing, which is confusing -- and it's an example of "reification" (which is one of the themes of the post in question).
Is Realization a nama-dhamma (mental phenomena) or can it be an asankhata-dhatu (unconditioned phenomena)?
Did you ever read and enjoy Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? The question reminds me of the bit about four fifths of the way through -- where he warns against Aristotle's classifying everything, and being a "professional academician", the theory that "dialectic comes before everything else", and the protagonist's complaint that what he considers primary is arbitrarily classified as a subcategory of something else.
But I think another answer on this site said it's conditioned -- that the act or process of enlightenment depends on conditions (e.g. "the factors of enlightenment").


text:
Is Cūḷa Suññata Sutta a prelude to Bahiya Sutta?
The Cūḷa Suññata Sutta gives a progressive means of experiencing sunyata.  The Bahiya Sutta (UD) tells of an interaction between Buddha and the Brahmin Bahiya - Buddha advises Bahiya to get right on the surface of things without any dwelling (bhava):
“And since for you, Bāhiya, in what is seen there will be only what is seen, in what is heard there will be only what is heard, in what is sensed there will be only what is sensed, in what is cognized there will be only what is cognized, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be with that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be with that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be in that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be in that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be here or hereafter or in between the two—just this is the end of suffering.”
Is the admonishment given to Bahiya a corollary to the themeless concentration (signless immersion of the heart) described in Cūḷa Suññata Sutta?  If Bahiya has not realized sunyata can he adhere to Buddha's words?

It's hard to talk about the advanced phases of Buddha's original path in the Canon, because no one can say with certainty that he or she understands exactly what those brief and cryptic Canon descriptions mean. Many people claim they "kind of" understand and have reproduced these phases, but their explanations don't match, and we don't have the Buddha available to confirm who of them got it right.
Luckily we know enough about Buddhism's underlying principles to recover the overall system, and this can help us figure out the meaning of these obscure passages.
First of all, there's no doubt for me that Buddhist liberation (whether we call it the end of suffering, or just Liberation in a broader sense) is about transcending the limits of mental constructs. It's clear to me that dukkha arises as a clash or irresolvable contradiction within a stream of experience. The clash, in its turn arises from mental constructs contradicting each other or contradicting reality. In a way, all mental constructs are simplifications, so as long as you attach to them as something complete and valid, you are prone to suffering.
This gives us enough context to understand Buddha's Noble Truths and his "liberation through wisdom" in principle. Once you clearly understand how exactly suffering arises and see the issue with attachment to mental constructs, you can learn to stop grasping, getting immune to suffering and free from all limits.
Another thing we can clearly see from the suttas is that most of the time Buddha taught a gradual, incremental method of implementation of these principles. First, one has to remove the coarse suffering by removing the coarse causes of coarse suffering. Then go to the harder to see and more subtle but also more fundamental types of suffering. There are many steps on this ladder.
All of the above is pretty clear but it is rather high-level understanding in broad strokes. What gets more difficult is to understand the step by step instructions given in the Canon. There are several different progressions given in the suttas, describing alternative ways to proceed.
One major variation of the path goes through the Four Jhanas. As I explained many times on this site, the Four Jhanas do not talk about the content of mind as a kind of fixed state, but rather about one's attitude to experience on each of the four stages. The meditator learns to overcome mind's tendency to create suffering by setting expectations and comparing them with reality. The process goes through several stages of refinement, until the meditator scrutinizes one's attitude to this meditation itself - one's motives and expectations - culminating in the direct non-intellectual experience of Tathata. This is known as the desireless door to Nirvana.
Another variant we see in the suttas is the one that goes through the Formless Ayatanas (never called "jhanas" in the Canon!) and the signless absorption. This one is also an incremental progression from coarse to subtle, but instead of reflecting on one's attitude and expectations, the meditator engages in the direct non-intellectual study of mental constructs and the workings of subject-object mind. The idea is to get a first-hand look at how all constructs are relative and how subject and object are two sides of the same coin. To do this, one scrutinizes one's mental experience of objects delineated against a series of ever-expanding backgrounds. First, spatial objects against the background of "space", then, the mental experience of "space" against the background of one's "consciousness", then reflect at one's own "consciousness" taken as an experience against the background of "nothing". (The key insight to gain from this practice is how each of these consecutive backgrounds serves as the subject observing the previous object, this subject itself becoming an object of an even deeper subject on the next step and so on.)
Then there is a stage that I don't fully understand - the Neither-Perception-Nor-Non-Perception. I don't think anyone really knows what that means. We know it must be more refined than the previous one, so it's probably some kind of background against which the experience of "nothing" is delineated and recognized by the mind.
What I do understand is the next stage: at that point meditator realizes that even recognizing "nothing" is an act of semiosis and finally arrives at the mind that does not perform any semiosis whatsoever -- not grasping at and not interpreting any signs. This is the signless absorption.
And then, as Buddha always says, one realizes that even though the signless absorption is absolutely free from suffering, sitting in this sterile bubble is not something that can last for infinity, because it is a conditioned situation that sooner or later ends. So the value of the signless absorption is not in it being one's final destination, but in giving the meditator direct non-intellectual understanding of how our experience of world and the self is just a bunch of mental constructs and therefore should not be taken too seriously. This is known as the signless door to Nirvana.
If you take a 40-thousand-feet-high look at both of the doors, you can see that the common theme there, in both cases the meditator does not stay within a sterile state of no expectations/desires as in the Fourth Jhana or the still mind of the signless absorption. Instead, both of these doors lead to the same breakthrough to the unconditioned non-abiding Tathata, the perfect attainment of the Third Noble Truth right in the middle of samsara.
Now, when we look at the Bahiya Sutta, we can assume that the Buddha is most likely talking about the very end of the path. Bahiya is presented as an advanced student who had enough reasons to think he could have been an arahant. Unlike in the  Cūḷa Suññata Sutta, with Bahiya the Buddha skips all the gradual teaching and gets right to the heart of the matter. Finally, at the end of the sutta Buddha declares that Bahiya has attained the final Nirvana. Clearly, he was a very advanced student ready to receive the most advanced teaching.
To me, the way Buddha talks about the seen, the heard, the cognized etc. being just what it is, looks like he talks about Tathata - the experience of an arahant.
Could he be talking about the signless absorption? I don't think so, first and foremost because in silent absorption one does not delineate the Ayatanas of the seen, the heard, or the cognized. The signless absorption is even beyond the Ayatana of Infinite Nothing and the one that goes after it. But here we are talking about Seen, Heard, Cognized as separate modalities. Clearly this is not the signless absorption.
Another useful detail Buddha adds is "you will not be 'with that' ... you will not be 'in that'". This reminds me of Buddha's teaching about anatta and how we should abandon habitual thinking "I am that; I am with that; I am in that" and so on - regarding any and all phenomena.
Finally, the Buddha concludes by equating this attainment with the end of suffering, the very Goal of Dharma. Is the signless absorption the Goal? No, the Buddha himself said it is not.
Instead, Buddha says, seeing what is seen, cognizing what is cognized without grasping at mental constructs, "you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two". In other words, neither in samsara ("here"), nor in the sterile bubble of samadhi ("beyond"), but in the groundless non-abiding nirvana.
So I think what Buddha describes there is quite simply the perspective of an arahant, not any intermediate stage preceding arahantship. Arahant looks at things with a dispassionate mind, not grasping at signs, seeing things yata-bhuta (as they are) without adding his or her expectations, attitude, or indeed anything related to self.
Based on all of the above, I think the answer to your question is: yes, the teaching in Bahiya Sutta logically goes after the teaching in Cūḷa Suññata Sutta.
Remember how I said the Four Jhanas is the desireless door to Nirvana and the Shunyata is the signless door? These are two alternative paths and the Bahiya Sutta describes where you get after walking either of them to the end.
So, yes, Bahiya must have either realized shunyata or have attained all four jhanas before meeting the Buddha, otherwise he would not be able to understand and perfectly implement the final instructions. Too bad he was stupid enough to get killed by a cow, otherwise he could have grown to be the second Shariputra, starting his own school of Buddhism, who knows ;)

Too bad he was stupid enough to get killed by a cow. Not all cows are docile. And any large male wild animal in heat (mating season) can become aggresive and very dangerous.

Did you find that hilarious? Me too. A zen style joke right in the middle of the Pali Canon.

Are ayantanas the organs or indriya?

No, Ayatanas are like subjective spaces or dimensions where experiences exist. Visible experiences are inside the Ayatana of "the realm of the visible", mental experiences are inside the Ayatana "the consciousness" or "the realm of the mental experiences" and so on. Space and Nothingness are also Ayatanas. With space it is easy to understand because all external objects are experienced inside "the realm of space". What they called Nothingness is also an Ayatana but that Ayatana requires deep concentration to see.

Indriya is eye-consciousness, etc  right?

Indriya is any power or faculty, like the power to see, the power to hear, the power of wisdom, any type of natural or supernatural power one has. The ancients didn't think in the same exact terms that we have, like "organs".

A zen style joke right in the middle of the Pali Canon - Can you explain? I'm not too familiar with non pali based texts.

I'm sorry, explaining Zen is bad style.

The Bahiya Sutta is not about the Signless. The content of the Bahiya Sutta is explained in detail in SN 35.95.

Bahiya sutta which tells Dhamma in brief is not a corollary to Emptiness sutta. It is the summary of Emptiness sutta. Although Dhamma can be described in brief , it is difficult to follow it if not accompanied by action. Imagine saying, seen is just seen and it is not you ,yours or yourself. It is easier said than done. You need a venerable Teacher to induce that belief in us. Whereas Sunyata sutta shows you how you can achieve by letting go of perceptions of cities , villages , people , earth , space , consciousness, neither perception nor non-perception , signless immersion of heart , defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn etc. It is a step by step process to achieve Nibbana by meditating on Emptiness by letting go. You can meditate on Impermanence to get the same effect of dispassion and cessation or you can meditate on Ugliness to achieve same effect or you can meditate on Dhamma in brief to achieve nirvana or meditate on five aggregates to achieve nirvana… All are equivalent with varying degrees of difficulty.


text:
Buddhist logic and Universals
It is generally accepted that Buddhist philosophy, as formalised in the texts of Dignana and Dharmakīrti, is resolutely nominalist in orientation. Briefly, this is because of the following characteristics:
Momentariness and Particularity: Buddhist epistemology and metaphysics, especially as articulated by Dharmakīrti and his followers, emphasize the concept of "ksana" or momentary existence. Every phenomenon is unique and exists only for a moment, after which it ceases to be. This emphasis on the particularity and fleeting nature of phenomena aligns with a nominalist perspective, as there's no lasting, eternal substance or universal essence behind these phenomena.
Denial of Svabhāva: Many Buddhist schools, particularly the Madhyamaka, deny the notion of "svabhāva" or inherent existence. Phenomena don't have an inherent, unchanging essence or nature. Instead, they exist interdependently. This challenges the idea that there are stable universals or abstract entities behind the individual particulars.
Use of Concepts and Designations: While Buddhists accept the practical use of concepts and general terms, they often regard them as mere designations or conventions ("prajñapti") that do not correspond to any real, independent entity in the world. Words and concepts group diverse and ever-changing phenomena under convenient labels for the sake of communication and understanding, but these labels do not capture the ultimate nature of things.
Rejection of a Permanent Self: At the core of Buddhist teachings is the doctrine of anātman or non-self. Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent, unchanging self or soul. This can be seen as a form of nominalism applied to personal identity, where the concept of a continuous, unified self is rejected in favor of a more fluid and contingent notion of identity.
Functionalism over Essentialism: In the Dharmakīrti tradition and other Buddhist systems, the function (or causal efficacy) of an entity is more important than any alleged essence. What makes something what it is, is not some inherent essence but its functional role.
Apoha Logic: The apoha theory avoids the commitment to universals. Instead of saying that all cows share a universal essence of "cow-ness," the apoha approach posits that our concept of "cow" merely excludes everything that isn't a cow. This approach sidesteps the metaphysical commitment to a universal essence shared among individual cows.
However, as a long-time student of both Buddhist and Western philosophy, the (heretical?) idea has occurred to me that there is a clear example of a universal right at the centre of the Buddhist tradition. And that is the Buddha! Why? Because, as is well known, Sakyamuni himself was not the only Buddha - there were Buddhas before him, and there will be future Buddhas, such as Maitreya. Something similar can be said of the bodhisattvas, who are exemplifications of a type or form. So in this case, Sakyamuni himself was one instantiation or particular instance of the Universal Buddha.
As I admit, it's an heretical suggestion, as Buddhist logic will never admit the reality of universals. But I find it hard to reconcile the 'idea of the Buddha' against their 'apoha logic'. Has this idea occured to anyone else?

The Buddha was elevated to a universal only in late Mahayana, where they extrapolated the notion of Dharma-as-universal-law => Dharmakaya => Universal Buddha.
In the original Buddhism it was the law of nature as the "root source" of the teaching e.g. SN12.20:

Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles, specific conditionality.
A Realized One understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it.

And from the existence of "regularity" it follows that from time to time someone will be able to understand it and construct a teaching e.g. the Eightfold Noble Path based on these principles.

'this law of nature persists' i.e. is universal. I think the root of the issue is that Buddhism doesn't possess the epistemological framework within which the concept of universals is intelligible, so they treat them as being on par with phenomena.

correct, it is a universal

The post forming the question, here, is referring to a type of Mahayana Logic rather than to Buddhist Logic, per se. Theravada Buddhism acknowledges 'sabhava'; although the meaning of 'sabhava' in Theravada is not the same as held in Mahayana.
In Theravada, the word 'sabhava' does not mean 'inherent existence'. The word 'sabhava' means 'intrinsic nature' or 'own nature'. Here, refer to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha and search for the word 'sabh'. For example, page 137 says:

Nibbana is timeless because its intrinsic nature (sabhava) is without
arising, change & passing away.

What this means is an element (dhatu) has its own nature, such as the element of consciousness has the nature of being consciousness rather than has the nature of being a 'self'. This meaning of 'sabhava', here, is not at all related to the interdependent arising of phenomena because 'sabhava' does not imply independence. Whether or not consciousness arises dependent upon the eye, the ears, a form, a sound, etc, does not change the reality that when consciousness arises it is simply consciousness. It is not self arising. Therefore, the doctrine of sabhava is the same as the doctrine of not-self & emptiness.
If the mind struggles to understand this naturalness of 'sabhava', the Pali Suttas, while not using the word 'sabhava', express the meaning of 'sabhava' as follows:

"And why do you call it 'form'? Because it is afflicted, thus it is
called 'form.'
"And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called
'feeling.'
"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is
called 'perception.'
"And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate
fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.'
"And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it
is called consciousness.
SN 22.79

The conflict Mahayana has with Theravada is Mahayana appears to say there are two types of emptiness: (i) emptiness of self; & (ii) emptiness of 'thingness' or 'inherent nature of each  element'. Its like saying the earth or water element do not really exist; that there is really no such thing as earth, water or consciousness. This later idea is obviously a nonsense. There is water, which is why water quenches the thirst of the body & then is urinated out of the body. If there was no water,  there would be no trees, no crops, no food, no life.

I believe that the concepts of Dharmakaya (eternal truth form) and Nirmanakaya (physical form) originated from the following sutta quote.
The Buddha downplayed the importance of his physical form and advised Ven. Vakkali to focus on the teachings, stating that when one sees the Buddha, one sees the Dharma (teachings), and when one sees the Dharma, one sees the Buddha.
In other words, the Dharma is what the Buddha stands for, and the Dharma is what the Buddha represents. The Dharma (teachings) is his eternal "form".

Vakkali: “For a long time, venerable sir, I have wanted to come to see
the Blessed One, but I haven’t been fit enough to do so.”
Buddha: “Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body?  One
who sees the Dhamma (teachings) sees me; one who sees me sees the
Dhamma (teachings). For in seeing the Dhamma (teachings), Vakkali, one
sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma (teachings).
Vakkali Sutta (SN 22.87)

I believe that the concept where the Nirmanakayas of all the past Buddhas emanate from one Dharmakaya originates from the following sutta quote.
It simply means that all the past and future Buddhas rediscover, understand and teach the same Dharma (teachings), because it is the natural law.
Hence their physical appearance as teachers, emanate from the Dharma (teachings) as their one eternal "form". In other words, all the Buddhas stand for the same Dharma (teachings) and all the Buddhas represent the same Dharma (teachings).

Past Buddhas,
future Buddhas,
& he who is the Buddha now,
removing the sorrow of many —
all have dwelt,
will dwell, he dwells,
revering the true Dhamma.
This, for Buddhas, is a natural law.
Therefore one who desires his own good,
aspiring for greatness,
should respect the true Dhamma,
recollecting the Buddhas' Teaching.
Garava Sutta (SN 6.2)

Due to this, apoha logic is maintained and not contradicted.

This question is an interesting example of the creation of a problem to justify mind-activity. Yes, some Buddhist schools lean nominalist, but asserting that as a 'resolute orientation' begs the question and sets up the problematic that follows. If we don't make that assertion, the question (^poof^) disappears.
In general, Buddhism takes an agnostic view. It doesn't claim that things don't exist any more than it claims they do exist. Instead, it teaches that the thinking (egoic) mind — language and thoughts and such — is incapable of encapsulating what is. A word or concept might partially grasp how things are, might tangentially refer to them, or might be entirely arbitrary or illusory desires or fantasies. A cube, a cow, a self... These concepts might or might not refer to something in the real world. But if they do, that 'something' is not (cannot be) what we think the word means.
It's the 'finger pointing at the moon' metaphor. Getting so caught up in the finger that we miss the moon is an error, and getting so caught up in the moon that we forget about the finger is an error. The point is to see them both for what they are, beyond the labels.
Being Buddha merely means being awake: perceiving the world as to is, not how it is imagined to be. It's an attitude or a worldview, not an identity. Or if it is an identity (as some people take it) it's an identity like 'doctor' that indicates a role a person serves for others. Best not to read more into it than that.

Are you saying that there are no universals ? It depends on condition.
If there is birth then there is ageing and death. And along with it whole mass of suffering arises. It is universal if there is birth.
If there is a sanskar or conditioning then it is impermanent. This is also universal if conditions are met.
All Dhammas (conditioned and unconditioned) are without any self (temporary or permanent).
This is also universal.
It is not abstract. It is the reality which can only be discerned by mind. Things are not as they appear to be.
Dependent origination is also universal.
I am wondering where is nominalism which states that there are no universals. You can say instead of universals there are conditionals except Nibbana.

@Deeraj Verma - 'I am wondering where is nominalism which states that there are no universals' - this is a question from Western philosophy, where 'universal' has a specific meaning. Universals in Western philosophy are abstracts like 'roundness' or 'whiteness' or 'triangularity', which are said to be 'instantiated' by particulars. So, balls are instantiations of the form of roundness. Buddhist logic disputes the existence of universals in that sense. But it's a difficult argument, because Western and Buddhist philosophy have very different background assumptions.

See this entry for a brief summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism#Indian_philosophy

@Wayfarer balls are instantiation of roundness from western point of view but balls are instantiation of Anatta and Impermanence and are true for all objects living or not.(impermanence doesn’t apply to Nibbana)

balls, however, are different to all the things which are not balls, according to apoha logic.

@Wayfarer Impermanence and Anatta applies to all things which have an origin or conditioned. Nibbana is unoriginated, unconditioned. The above two statements are Universals and applies to all things. You , me , Earth , Table , balls , countries , cities, Gods , Devils etc. This is how you should see everything.


text:
Why is Avalokiteśvara the "main character" of the Heart Sutra?
I'm a Zen practicant and, as you may know, we recite the Heart Sutra of the Perfect Wisdom a lot. I really like this sutra, it is very meaningful.
However something I never understood is: why is the Boddhisattva Avalokiteśvara present in the sutra?
The sutra teaches about vacuity and originated dependence etc. And, as far as I am concerned, Avalokiteśvara is usually associated more with compassion. So why is he specifically in this sutra?

Q: Why is Avalokiteśvara the "main character" of the Heart Sutra?
There are a few different ways to approach this.

Guanyin is the main character because he was the most popular Buddhist deity in China when the text was composed. Where an Indian Prajñāpāramitā text would usually only talk about bodhisatvas in the abstract, the Chinese author of this text felt that a personification would be more appropriate.

Guanyin is the main character because the author, Xuanzang, was trying to curry favour from the Emperor Gaozong via his wife Wu Zhao (who later became Empress Wu, the first and only woman to take the Chinese throne). Gaozong was quite anti-Buddhist and had placed a number of restrictions on Xuanzang, including a board of censors empowered to edit his translations. But Wu Zhao was a Buddhist and also quite powerful, especially once Gaozong began to experience a series of debilitating illnesses. We can think of the Heart Sutra as a sample of what Xuanzang hoped to do with his translations. Xuanzang was old, not in good health, and eager to translate the cache of Prajñāpāramitā texts that he had retrieved from India. Xuanzang presented a gold-inked copy of the Heart Sutra to the Emperor on 26 Dec 656. This is the earliest literary reference to the Heart Sutra.

My approach is to point out that as far as the standard text is concerned, Guanyin does not, in fact, speak. There are convention ways of indicating that someone is speaking using verbal forms like āmantrayate, avocat, or āha. Since these don't occur in the text, at face value, no one is speaking. However, most of the lines in the Heart Sutra are copied from the Large Prajñāpāramitā text. A well known and attested source. The lines in which Śāriputra is addressed by name, for example, are spoken by the Buddha in the Large text. The lines in which Prajñāpāramitā is a mahāvidyā etc are spoken by the Buddha to Śakra.

It is interesting to note, that in both of the extended versions of the text, lines are added to make sense of Guanyin speaking, so clearly people in China thought he was speaking.

Excellent. I did not previously know the above. I knew it is held the Heart Sutra had some Chinese origins but I did not know there was a Large Prajñāpāramitā.  Page 56 of this link appears to be the relevant start of the Large Prajñāpāramitā, with the Lord Buddha speaking to Sariputta http://lirs.ru/lib/conze/The_Large_Sutra_On_Perfect_Wisdom,Conze,1975.pdf

So the first part was totally added by the translator?

@DhammaDhatu The Heart Sutra passage in Conze's Large Sutra  translation can be found on p.61. It starts half way through the first para and ends halfway through the second. The passage in the Heart Sutra is abbreviated.
The epithets passage can be found on page 237 of the same translation. The words are first spoken by Śakra and then repeated by the Buddha.
The dhāraṇī comes from another text, T 901.

thank you  Jayarava

The simple truth is that the sutra is not the words of the Buddha.
The heart, perfection of wisdom/s and diamond (I think) sutras as well as many others came AFTER Nagarajunas philosophy of sunyata, which in of itself encompasses dependent origination and anatta taught by the Buddha.
So firstly as a standard writing practice and to try and make it seem like it is the actual words of the Buddha, to give authenticity they use the traditional premise(s) "thus it was once heard"....etc
Secondly to make it stick out as a "new and improved sutra that nagarajuna found in a lake that Buddha gave to naga spirits because people of the time of the Buddha did not have the karma and faculties to understand" it encompasses what is essentially a new repurposed hindu god...Aveloketishvara.
Lastly the point in the sutra of the Bodhisattva explaining the Buddhas teaching is to reaffirm the Trikaya philosophy, which ascertains the Buddha is the essential essence of all beings, so a person can do (teach) actions of/as a Buddha without being a Buddha.
To simplify it from my own understanding. Religious dogma, not authentic record keeping.

Hmm. This answer contains a number of factual inaccuracies. The "simple truth" is that no sutra is "the words of the Buddha". And this is irrelevant to the question in any case. It is religious special pleading. Perfection of wisdom predates Nāgāruna and is generally unrelated to his madhyamaka metaphysics. The myth of Nāgārjuna and the naga spirits comes from a much later period. This text has nothing to do with Trikaya theory.

The 4 nikayas are deemed as the teachings (words) of the Buddha, historical records drawn originally from oral remembrance of the people who were alive and recorded mentally and passed on what the Buddha taught as he was alive. They are written as such, people remembering what they heard of what a human being said. Later fantastical sutras like the prajnaparamita, heart, lotus and diamond sutras are clearly not like this (with the exclusion of the heart sutra) where it is a human being saying words, they are fantastical stories or metaphysical musings.

The PoW (original 8k lines) may predate nagarajuna but it was nagarajunas philosophy who created this philosophical structure that the heart sutra is teaching. Which in turn the PoW also teaches as sunyata.  The text itself does coincide with the trikaya philosophy as the very reason itself why it has any relevance and is listened to, taught and seen as the Buddhas teachings by Mahayanists is because despite sariputta and aveloketishvara being the ones who speak in the sutra, it is claimed as the words of the Buddha himself because of the Dharmakaya which allows aveloketishvara to speak "for"

The Buddha. Which in the Sutra the Buddha says yeas this is correct...   Essentially these are much later musings of philosophies not taught by the Buddha and amalgamated into a text that has become popular and accepted as the words of the Buddha (by Mahayana) because of these philosophies themself. Trikaya, 2 truth doctrine, madhyamaka etc.

You are entirely wrong about the philosophy of the Heart Sutra. It owes nothing to Nāgārjuna.
The oldest Prajñāpāramitā document is from the first century CE, the oldest Pāli document is from the sixth century. We don't know that Pāli is older than Prajñāpāramitā based on evidence. It's a presupposition. In my view, Prajñāpāramitā is older than Buddhism per se, since the Buddha learned the basic techniques from his pre-enlightenment teachers Āḷāra Kālāma and Udaka Ramaputra.

I note that your answer currently has -1 votes. Likely because you didn't really answer the question and your answer has false information in it.

Avalokitesvara is Bodhisattva of compassion. He has perfected the quality of generosity (dana-paramita). As such, the sutra is given by him- it is out of generosity- the 'dana' of dharma is the highest dana (or at least one of the higest 'dana') which can be given. This, is a simple explanation, of why Aalokitesvara is the "main character" in the Heart sutra.


text:
Ejaculation and the brain
I’m just curious if anyone has noticed what I am noticing. When I ejaculate, in that exact moment, there is a weird sensation in my head. This sensation is about half the duration of the orgasm, so about one second long. it feels like something is literally being drained from my head in that moment.
Immediately, after this, I feel unclear and with slight brain fog - basically more delusion, I think. This brain fog takes about a day to get lifted.
So I’m wondering what this is and is it just me or is there’s any mention of any energy related stuff in Buddhism related to it? Thanks for any answers.

Their are chemical changes that happen in the brain with this. Nothing to do with Buddhism.

I’m voting to close this question because this question doesn’t meet a Buddhism Stack Exchange guideline.

@YesheTenley Don't you think that is a rather simplistic approach. If it had nothing to do with buddhism, why did Buddha include in five precepts; why did the whole buddhism community split apart because of this (that arhats could experience orgasm) ? I think the moment is orgasm has high spiritual significance from experiential point of view (which is outside of materialistic metaphysical framework )

The question is the effect on the brain not the mind. Buddhism is interested in the latter.

You are going through different feelings.
Before I begin to answer understand that mental fog is not a delusion.
First there was ignorance; with ignorance as a precondition came volitional formations; with volitional formations as a precondition came consciousness; with consciousness as a precondition came name and form ; with name and form as a precondition came six senses ; with six senses as a precondition came contact ; with contact as a precondition came feelings and these feelings will ultimately lead you to whole mass of suffering as with feelings as a precondition cravings will arise ; with cravings as precondition clinging will arise ; with clinging as a precondition attachments will arise ; with attachments as a precondition becoming has arisen ; with becoming as a precondition birth , rebirth , ageing , death and whole mass of suffering has arisen.
You better give up sex if you want Nibbana.


text:
Rescued wounded bird but forgot let it out of the sun and it's dead, am I going to hell for this?
Two days ago I rescued a wounded dove, it probably got bit by a cat or being shot by a gun.
It laid on my front door and ants were eating it like hundreds of them, the eyes were still moving so I picked it up and cleaned it, the wound as well. I fed it for 2 days, gave it a shelter and everything. Looks like it's going well and it's going to recover eventhough I don't know if it's internally broken or not.
But this morning my aunt told me it's a baby bird (which is not) I got confused so I tried to put it under the nests around my house and I went back to sleep, at the moment I started to realize the sun is going to come that way and in my mind I thought, it's ok I got my alarm at 10am which would probably not be too hot? and then I fell asleep. I woke up again and saw the sun is burning hot I ran out of my house to pick it up, it died, overheated.
I have OCD for overthinking and I feel really guilty that I might really go to hell for this, I'm not entirely Buddhism but my parents are so I tend to believe in karma, especially for animals abuse.
I understand that I had good intention to save it but I killed it in the end because of my laziness? careless? stupidity? I don't know what it was, I could've moved it when I realized it but I chose to sleep instead, thinking it would be ok.
Am I right that I might just go to hell 50% for this?

I'm not an expert on Buddhism by any means, but from a purely secular perspective, this might help.

thank you, yes I've noticed myself being like that many times and it had led everything into bad situation every time. I feel such fool even selfish

All of your actions were from good intentions. This is all that matters.
You did not have any intention to hurt the bird.
More importantly, we actually do not know if your actions contributed to the bird's passing away.
When animals are seriously injured, very often, they soon pass away.
I tried to save a kangaroo once, whose back leg was broken by a car. Even though the kangaroo looked like it was fully energy & life, after two hours, it passed away.

Thank you so much, I tried to help every injured animal I encountered but most of the time ended up with disappointment or sadness. Sometimes I just want to give up helping because I can't bare the guilt or attachment. So hard to stop overthinking but I will work on it.

Traditionally, karma had been defined as action. Not just any action but backed by intention. This action could be a certain behaviour, a spoken word or a thought. Similarly, the process in which karma results in either good, bad or neutral consequences are traditionally taught with an analogy of a seed being planted and eventually bearing sweet, bitter or tasteless fruits.

Am i right that i might just go to hell 50% for this?

In short, no. Because the bad intention element is missing. Having said, you probably realized by now that good intention alone is often not sufficient for ensuring good outcomes in the real world. It is for this reason that the practice in the Dharma requires reflection and contemplation as the advice given by the Buddha to Venerable Rahula indicated. Thus, besides ensuring that our thoughts, speech and behaviour are without ill-will and greed, we also need to work on overcoming the constant and harmful effects of delusion and ignorance. We do so by taking note of the following (as per the advice to Venerable Rahula) before performing an action:

Will our thoughts, speech and actions lead to our self-harm, harm to others or both?
Will our thoughts, speech and actions lead to our self-benefit, benefits to others or both?
Are there long-lasting harmful consequences in our actions?
Are there long-lasting beneficial consequences in our actions?

I see (1) and (2) as focusing on the short term effects while (3) and (4) are the long term considerations. While or after performing the action, the Buddha further advise that we should review the results.

Are the consequences of our actions beneficial/harmful to ourselves, others or both? Was it skillful or unskillful?

If the subsequent review of our actions proof to be overall beneficial then the advice is to be gladdened and motivated thus persevering onwards. But if the review is overall negative then the advice is to desist from such actions immediately and in the future. In both scenarios, we should always focus on ways that we can improve our actions to get better results (e.g. can I do it better) or to prevent ourselves from making such wrong decisions (e.g. what can I do to prevent this mistake) now and in the future.
So think of ways you could do better. Being a human is tough because we have remorse and guilt. Yet at the same time, we can leverage on these emotions to be better beings.
With Metta!

thank you so much for your advice, I appreciated it.

How many ants' lives are worth a bird's life? Nature works by lives consuming each other at some point. It's our human perception that sees a bird as more worth saving than an ant, or a hundred ants. All life is life.

Also, from a less spiritual point of view, this summer I found a wounded house sparrow and tried to help it, but it was clearly injured beyond being able to fly. I asked a bird enthusiast friend of mine what to do. "One less invasive house sparrow?" he said. "More chance for the native birds to come back."

But despite these "big picture" caveats, perhaps the most important takeaway for a young person is: Hold on to your love of nature and concern for life. While you can't put the death of this bird on your conscience as something that will lead to eternal punishment, your reaction of deep care about the fate of a bird is a lovely thing that you should not lose as you get older. Don't become cynical.

Hell is not a geographical location. Neither was it a word used by people on this side of the world.
Buddhism is not one of the religions which says there are hells and heavens. All talk of hells and heavens, in Buddhism, is a way of describing the aspects of mental states. Because mental states/mind becomes more technical to talk about or subtle to understand, most teachers, in their attempt to explain/teach some things, used examples (of hells and heavens) found in the literature of those times so that people could related or understand. 2000 years later, those words have been translated as hells and heavens- which means quite different things in different systems of thoughts.

Thank you for your comments, for the understanding of hell, I just have so many guilts in my heart when i did something wrong and here in Thailand people just often talks about if you kill animals or something, karma will come back to you either that someone would do the same things to you in the future or you'll go to hell and so on.
I just can't imagine if someone left me in the heat till i die because of their stupidity like i did to the bird, it would be so painful.

Relax. Don’t be nervous. You should understand why you should not kill animals? You should not kill animals because it is not a skilful act. Being compassionate you should not hold any ill will against anyone. Killing animals is a hindrance to becoming compassionate. Unless you steal money or rob a bank or kill somebody intentionally , you are not going to take rebirth in lower realms like that of animals or hell. Every life should be looked upon with an eye of compassion because everyone ,big or small, is going to suffer.


text:
How long does it take to read the Sutta Pitaka (exluding the Kuddhaka Nikaya)?
I bought the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya and Anguttara Nikaya from Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations and was wondering how long it will take to read through these 4 Pitakas?
I once read that it takes approx 2 years to read through the entire Sutta Pitaka (I don't have the 5th Pitaka the Kuddhaka Nikaya). Is that correct?
Have a good day.

If you read daily for at least an hour a day, you should finish much sooner than in two years. I have read them on my daily commute to work and it took me about 6 months, but I must admit I skipped Digha and did not finish all of the Anguttara, so if we add that I guess it will come up to about a year...?
It really depends on your reading speed though.

Thank you very much. I consider myself fairly good at reading English and think that 1 year sounds reasonable. I also don't want to read through them too fast but in a pace that allows me to ponder what's being written. My plan is actually to read for 1 hour a day. In the weekend maybe 2 hours:) I wish the venerable some day would also translate the Kuddhaka Nikaya:)

I enjoy reading the English translations of suttas. It’s so much fun that I don’t mind how time goes into it. I have been reading for almost four years now but haven’t finished it yet. Every sutta is complete in itself. I revisit it again and again if something strikes me.You were much faster. It takes time understand and once you understand realisation comes. So take your time, mine was 4 years and counting.

Thank you very much Dheeraj:) I want to take my time reading them so I can also understand them.


text:
How much did Buddha walk in his lifetime?
How many miles(kilometers) did Buddha walk during his life? According to one source, "The entire pilgrimage route is within the span of about 350 miles east to west and 250 miles north to south, and the Buddha is known to have walked across it many times."

He travelled hundreds of kilometres. From Lumbini to Sarnath to kapilvastu to Pataliputra to bodh gaya to khushinagar. You can not calculate exact number of kilometers because it is not known which path he took. He had the ability to vanish from some point and spontaneously reappear at other.
The suttacentral.net is not working for mobile browsers therefore I am unable to give links. But in DN 16 sutta it is said that “the Buddha with the mendicant Sangha , vanished from near shore and landed on the far shore”.


text:
Is dependent origination held to be the law of conventional reality?
I read the following on the internet:

The principle of dependent origination is held to be the law of
conventional reality - as such it is a generalized law.

What words of the Buddha are there to support or, otherwise, refute this claim?

From where you have picked up this statement, there itself it was suggested to read through some sutras and other readings that would help you to understand. However, posing a question here may too hopefully help you!

@HomagetoManjushri "Read through some sutras" is not informative as an answer nor a comment -- better to identify which some specific sutra[s] (which I think is what the question is asking for), preferably even with a quote to show how the referenced sutra is answer to the question. So far as I know the one reference you posted is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india

Yes, by itself it is not informative. I completely agree. In fact, to do just that would be unkind. I apologise if that is how it appears. But in my answer and comments, I have provided reasons and sources. I have emphasised that it is a vast topic and to say a few things, provide a few references cannot do justice to the depth of Buddha's teachings, especially for people who come across something for the first time. For them, I add the wish that they read more sutras so the answer provided here becomes more meaningful or sensical.

In the Pali Suttas, there is no such term as "conventional reality". In the Pali Suttas, the word "convention" is simply used to refer to how the enlightened view certain matters pertaining to how the ordinary unenlightened world views things. For example:

“Someone who has given up conceit has no ties,
the ties of conceit are all dissipated.
Though that intelligent person has transcended identity,
they’d still say, ‘I speak’,
and also ‘they speak to me’.
Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions,
they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”
SN 1.25

In SN 20.7, the Buddha said his core transcendent teachings of ultimate reality are connected to emptiness:

'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata —
deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness —
are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing
them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.'
That's how you should train yourselves."

In MN 117, the doctrine of Dependent Origination is not included in those teachings not connected to emptiness; that are not transcendent:

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There
is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without
effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
resulting in acquisitions? '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 contemplatives & brahmans
who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing
the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents,
who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that
is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

SN 12.12 is merely one of many Pali Suttas demonstrating how Dependent Origination expresses emptiness:

"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then
the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But
since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will
be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the
correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of
sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would
be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that
the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling;
and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would
be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that
the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and
craving is the condition of clinging.'"
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say
that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would
be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that
the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the
origin of this entire mass of suffering.

Therefore, as was posted elsewhere, yet rejected by those following heretic ideologies, Dependent Origination is not a man-made "convention" born of ignorance but is a Law of Nature, existing regardless of human perception/realisation of it. Thus the Lord Buddha revealed:

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death.
SN 12.20

To reiterate, 'conventions' are man-made phenomena. Thus the Law of Dependent Origination is not a 'conventional reality'.

In individual human bodies
you can’t find such distinctions.
The distinctions among humans
are spoken of by convention.
MN 98

As much as it is good to have opinions, it does not amount to technical terminlogoies. Comapring the word convention, conventional reality and then having implications is your opinion. It is not the reasoning of BUddha (or for that matter any successive Buddhist Philosopher)

The first sutta Dhammacakkapavattana sutta, you find mention of two truths. In other sutras delivered after, there is detailed explanations of two-truths, of samvritti satya and paramartha satya. The two have been translated as conventional truth and ultimate truth. These are words of Buddha.
When the natural law is expressed in conventional language and about the apparent world, it is expressed as dependent origination. When the natural law is expressed from the truth of the highest meaning, it is labelled as ultimate truth.
Furthermore, it has been established by later Buddhist Philosophers (without contradicting the words of the Buddha) that dependent origination and sunyata are two sides of the same coin. Dependent origination is the (generalised law) that explains the phenomenal truth of conventional reality sunyata is the (generalised law) which helps explain the truth of ultimate reality.
EDIT- To infer two-truths from Dhammacakkapavatta sutra may be perhaps difficult (for some people) therefore I add a reference from another sutra where you can explicitly see the articulation of two expressions for the same truth- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.025.than.html
Here is an anrticle which may perhaps better guide you in understanding two-truths theory- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india/#PriLit

If dependent origination is conventional truth then can you give example of highest truth ? How natural law of highest meaning is expressed?

@Dheeraj Verma I appreciate your question. It is not borne out of cynicism. Its expression as sunya (and later on sunyata) articulates the law of highest meaning- patticaya samutpada.

@HomagetoManjushri Meditation on emptiness , meditation on impermanence, meditation on ugliness ,meditation on not-self etc all lead to same Nibbana. Why emptiness has highest meaning? Can you provide some reference?

@Dheeraj Verma It's an important and good question. I hope what i write helps you to look more into it. Emptiness of all phenomena, "sarva dharma sunyata-lakshana" is the reason why nirvana is possible in the first place. Suffering or miseries are not objectively real. They are empty of objectivity. And because they are so, it is possible to remove them. The realisation that things are not as how they appear in cultivated through emptiness of self (anatta) and emptiness of all phenomena. This is the reason why the soteriological truth of the highest meaning is expressed using sunyata.

The Law of Dependent Origination is not a "convention" or "conventional reality".
However, the Law of Dependent Origination certainly does explain how (what the enlightened regard as) "ignorant conventions" originate.
The ignorant view of "a being" ("satta") is a delusion & convention in the Buddha's Teaching. SN 5.10 says:

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.

SN 23.2 states:

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to
be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
being.'

SN 12.2 explains what Dependent Origination is, including how ignorance causes the delusional conventions of "beings" ("satta") to originate:

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent,
coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of
[sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings,
that is called birth.

Therefore, while those "conventions" called "beings" originate due to the Law of Dependent Origination, the Law of Dependent Origination itself is not a convention.
It seems many confuse The Law with the results of the law. Just because being imprisoned in jail is undesirable; does not mean having Law is undesirable. Similarly, just because the Law of Dependent Origination describes how conventional delusions of 'self/beings' arise, does not mean the Law itself is delusional or conventional. The Law is merely the natural Law.


text:
What is the meaning of this Mañjuśrī teaching?
I read the following in the internet:

Sheng-yen renders the following teaching of Mañjuśrī, for entering
samādhi naturally through transcendent wisdom:

Contemplate the five skandhas as originally empty and quiescent,
non-arising, non-perishing, equal, without differentiation. Constantly
thus practicing, day or night, whether sitting, walking, standing or
lying down, finally one reaches an inconceivable state without any
obstruction or form. This is the Samadhi of One Act.

Wikipedia

What is meant, here, by the five skandhas (five components of life) as:

empty?
non-arising?
non-perishing?
equal, without differentiation?

I think the quote in Wikipedia is Sheng-yen's paraphrase of The Fourth Patriarch Tao-hsin who quoted from the Manjushri sutra:

The Fourth Patriarch Tao-hsin 道信（580-651 ）
wrote Ju-tao anhsin yao fang-pien men 入道安心要方便
門. The Methods for Entering the  Path  and  Calming
the Mind. In it, he quoted from the Lankavatara Sutra
and the Wen-shu  shuo po-jo ching  文殊說般若經.  The
Prajna  Sutra  Spoken  by Manjusri.  He stresses  the
importance  of tso-ch'an for the beginner, with
emphasis on the right posture. The neophyte must then
contemplate the five skandhas the material skandha of
form (the elements), and the four mental  skandhas  :
feeling,  perception, phenomena,  and  consciousness.
The Manjusri  Sutra says, "He should contemplate  the
five skandhas as originally  empty and quiescent,
non-arising,     non-perishing,     equal,    without
differentiation.  Constantly  thus practicing, day or
night, whether  sitting, walking, standing  or  lying
down, finally  one  reaches  an  inconceivable  state
without any obstruction or form.  This is the Samadhi
of One Act (I-hsing sanmei) 一行三昧."

TSO-CH'AN
By Master Sheng-Yen

Strangely though, I looked for a translation of the Manjusri Sutra to see for myself what it says originally, and what I read there about the Samadhi of One Act doesn't talk about skandhas, it seems to be very different:

Mañjuśrī asked, “World-Honored One, what is called the One Action Samādhi?”
The Buddha replied, “The dharma realm has the one appearance. Focusing one’s mind on the dharma realm is called the One Action Samādhi. If, among good men and good women, there are those who aspire to enter the One Action Samādhi, they should first hear prajñā-pāramitā and next train and learn it accordingly. Then they will be able to enter the One Action Samādhi, which fits the conditions of the dharma realm: indestructible, inconceivable, with no regress, no hindrance, and no appearance. If good men and good women aspire to enter the One Action Samādhi, they should sit properly in an open place, facing the direction of a Buddha, abandon distracting thoughts and appearances, focus their minds on that Buddha, and keep saying His name. If they can continue, thought after thought, thinking of one Buddha, they will be able to see, in their thinking, past, future, and present Buddhas. Why? Because the merit acquired from thinking of one Buddha is immeasurable and boundless, no different from the merit acquired from thinking of innumerable Buddhas or thinking of the inconceivable Buddha Dharma.
The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra taught by Manjushri

A little earlier though in ibid. is the passage which might be paraphrased as being about skandhas:

Mañjuśrī said,

“If I could say that I abide in prajñā-pāramitā, this would be a
perception founded on the view that one has a self. Abiding in a
perception founded on the view that one has a self means that
prajñā-pāramitā has a place. That I do not abide in prajñā-pāramitā is
also [a perception] founded on the view that one has a self, and is a
place as well. Free from these two places [subject and object], I
abide in not abiding, like Buddhas abiding in the inconceivable state
of peace and silence. Such an inconceivable state is called the
dwelling of prajñā-pāramitā. In the dwelling of prajñā-pāramitā, all
dharmas have neither appearance nor act.
“Prajñā-pāramitā is inconceivable. The inconceivable state is the dharma realm, which has no appearance. Having no appearance is the inconceivable state; the inconceivable state is prajñā-pāramitā. Prajñā-pāramitā and the dharma realm are the same, not distinct. Having neither differentiation nor appearance is the dharma realm; the dharma realm is the realm of prajñā-pāramitā. The realm of prajñā-pāramitā is the inconceivable state; the inconceivable state is the realm of no birth and no death.”

Mañjuśrī continued,

“The realm of a Tathāgata and the realm of a self are the appearance of non-duality. Those who practice prajñā-pāramitā in this way do not seek bodhi. Why not? Because bodhi, which is free from appearances, is prajñā-pāramitā.
“World-Honored One, to know the appearances of a self means not to be captivated by it. Not knowing and not being captivated by anything is what Buddhas know. The inconceivable [state of] not knowing and not being captivated by anything is what Buddhas know. Why? They know that the true nature of everything has no appearance. Then what drives the dharma realm? What in its true nature has neither self-essence nor attachment is called no thing[2] and is free from place, dependency, and fixity. Freedom from place, dependency, and fixity means having neither birth nor death. Having neither birth nor death is the virtue of any saṁskṛta or asaṁskṛta dharma. With this knowledge, one will not elicit perception. Without perception, how can one know the virtue of any saṁskṛta or asaṁskṛta dharma? Not knowing[3] is the inconceivable state. The inconceivable state is what Buddhas know, such as neither grasping nor not grasping, seeing neither the appearance of past, present, or future, nor the appearance of coming or going, and grasping neither birth nor death, neither cessation nor perpetuity, neither arising nor acting. This knowledge is called the true wisdom-knowledge, the inconceivable wisdom-knowledge. Like the open sky, with neither appearances nor features, in unequaled equality, it makes no comparison, neither this against that nor good against evil.”

The Buddha told Mañjuśrī,

“This knowledge is called the wisdom-knowledge that never fades.”

Now for your question -- "What is meant by empty, non-arising, etc.?"
I'm not sure I can explain it in my own words.
The four noble truths suggest that suffering (and desire) arise and cease -- and the goal is cessation, or non-arising.
In a similar way I think the quote you're asking about is saying to contemplate the skandhas as "non-arisen".
A complication (which may or may not be relevant) might be that according to some "perfect wisdom" doctrine, it isn't correct to talk about things (dhammas including skandhas) as arising and ceasing -- because, they have no own-existence, they're like dreams.

The Pali suttas contain different words that are sloppily translated as "arise" & "cease". For example, MN 148 refers to uppādo & vayo for the operational arising & ceasing of the six sense spheres when viewed as not-self by a Buddha. Then suttas such as SN 22.5 & AN 4.41 uses words such as "samudaya" & "atthaṅgama" when referring to the arising & ceasing of grasping in relation to the five aggregates. Thus aggregates arising & passing from conscious awareness of them is different to aggregates arising/growing/fattening & passing/settling down due to grasping & non-grasping.

The word "udaya" appears to mean "growth" or "increase". "Samudaya" appears to mean "growth/increase" together with ("sam") defilements. Uppada appears to means to "pop up". For example, the suttas say Buddhas "uppada" ("arise").

Emptiness of five aggregates means body is empty of self, feelings are empty of self , perceptions are empty of self , choices are empty of self , consciousness is empty of self.
Form or body is non- arising thus non- perishing. Similarly feelings , perceptions, choices and consciousness are non -arising thus non perishing.
Bodies or forms are equal whether good or bad. Similarly feelings, perceptions, choices and consciousness are equal whether good or bad.

Thank you for your answer however I marked it down. It contains no references & the view offered about emptiness here sounds Theravadin. I would particularly like to learn what are the Sanskrit or Chinese words here for  non-arising & non-perishing.

@DhammaDhatu Sanskrit term for non-arising is Anutpāda and for non-perishing is Alaya.

"Contemplate the five skandhas as originally empty and quiescent, non-arising, non-perishing, equal, without differentiation."
This refers to the same breakthrough that is described in the Heart of Prajnaparamita Sutra:

Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara, while performing deep practice of Prajnaparamita (alt. transl. "samadhi of transcendent wisdom" as in your excerpt - AV), contemplated the five skandhas and saw that they were devoid of essential nature (aka "empty" - AV).
...
Shaariputra, all things have the character of emptiness: they neither arise nor perish; they are neither defiled nor pure, neither deficient nor complete. (In other words, in the absence of conceptualization by a sentient observer, phenomena are "originally equal, without differentiation" - AV)

"Constantly thus practicing, day or night, whether sitting, walking, standing or lying down, finally one reaches an inconceivable state without any obstruction or form."
This, again is a reference to the Heart Sutra:

By not grasping at mental constructs (alt. trans. "with no hindrance in the mind" or "no mental obstruction" - as in your passage), bodhisattva dwells in Prajnaparamita. No grasping therefore no fear. Far beyond mistaken fantasy, at last there is Nirvana.

The technical term for "mental obstruction" used in the Sanskrit version of Heart Sutra is "citta āvaraṇa". It refers to a rigid mental construct blocking one's vision like the cataract.

So your answer seems to be suggesting the "five aggregates" are "concepts" therefore in Emptiness there are no concepts arising & passing therefore there are no aggregates? If this is true, when the Buddha asks: "Please bring some water", his mind ceases to dwell in Emptiness? Is this true? Do you believe the Enlightenment of Buddhas is only temporary? Do you believe Enlightenment is an absence of "concepts"? Thanks

Hi, good question. Literal abiding in emptiness is called signless absorption and it is temporary. Liberation by wisdom is beyond that. It is not grasping at concepts, and seeing through concepts. In Mahayana they call it "non-abiding Nirvana".

OK. Whatever. More different words.


text:
Has Buddha ever talked about Mudras?
I have seen images of Buddha in different mudras like karana mudra etc on the Internet. However I have not read about any mudras in suttas.
My question is : Is there any Sutta which talks about mudras to practice ?

maybe you should learn some mudras and when it occurs u might wonder to yourself no?

Maybe the most famous is the earth-touching mudra, a.k.a. "calling the earth to witness".
That's not in Snp 3.2 -- instead I think it's in the Introduction to the Jakata Tales and maybe a commentary on the Buddhavamsa.
It's difficult to prove that something doesn't exist -- i.e. that none of the Suttas talk about mudras -- but Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta (AN 10.176) may be relevant. It says that Brahmans have purification rites of which this is one ...

Come, now, my good man: Get up at the proper time from your bed and touch the earth.

... and that instead of that, the Buddha teaches that one is made impure or pure by unskilful or by skillful bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions.