text:
What is musavada in the five precepts?
What is musāvādā in the five precepts?
On this five precepts page, it is translated as "incorrect speech", presumably by Ven. Thanissaro.
On this DN 27 page, Ven. Sujato translated it as "false speech".
In Iti 25, Ven. Thanissaro instead translated it as lying.
From SN 45.8, we read the definition of right speech as follows:

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech,
from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

So what exactly is musāvādā in the five precepts?
Does it refer to only lying or untruthful speech?
Or is it considered "incorrect speech", the opposite of Right Speech, that includes lying, divisive speech and abusive speech?
If musāvādā is not "incorrect speech", the opposite of Right Speech, then what is the correct Pali term for the opposite of Right Speech?
Please provide references to suttas if available.

So far as I know it's defined -- defined by example -- in AN 10.176

(Impurity in speech)
And how, Cunda, does one become impure in vācā in four ways? Here, Cunda, one is musāvādī. When he has been brought to the meeting hall, in front of an assembly, among his relatives, his guild, in the midst of the royal court, on being asked as a witness: 'come, my good man, what you know, tell us', if he doesn't know, he says: 'I know', if he knows, he says: 'I don't know', if he has not seen, he says: 'I have seen', if he has seen, he says: 'I have not seen'. Thus, for his own sake, or for the sake of someone else, or for the sake of some trifle gain, he is one who deliberately{2} speaks falsely.
One is pisuṇavāco, he is one who tells there what he has heard here, as a consequence of which [there is] disunion, who tells here what he has heard there, as a consequence of which [there is] disunion. Thus dividing those who are in unity and further dividing those who are disunited,{3} delighting in dissension, devoted to dissension, gladdening in dissension, he is one who speaks a vācā that creates dissension.
One is pharusavāco, he is one who speaks such a vācā which is rough, hard, bitter to others, abusive to others, connected with anger, and conducive to non-samādhi.
One is samphappalāpī, he is one who speaks at the wrong time, who speaks of what is not actual,{4} who speaks unprofitable words, who speaks of what is contrary to the Dhamma, of what is contrary to the Vinaya; he is one who speaks words which are not worth treasuring, at the wrong time, that which is nt reasonable, not moderate, or words which are related to what is not profitable.
These, Cunda, are the four ways in which one becomes impure in vācā.

So "Musa" is one of four types of wrong speech -- false speech is wrong speech, plus there are other types of wrong speech (e.g. divisive gossip) that's wrong even though it isn't false.
The footnote for "deliberately" there says,

deliberately: sampajāna - here the word has a wordly meaning. Its other meaning, spiritual, is of fundamental importance in the Buddha's teaching.

The presence of the word sampajāna, in that context, might imply that speech isn't false unless it's deliberate -- or that false speech isn't impure unless it's deliberate -- I'm not sure which. Taking it literally it's even more specific:

Thus, for his own sake, or for the sake of someone else, or for the sake of some trifle gain, he is one who deliberately{2} speaks falsely.

... i.e. it's done for some kind of "gain" and maybe even in a court. So maybe more specifically equivalent to "bearing false witness against a neighbour".
I'm still not certain which is implied by DN 27:

Is that implying that brahmins are lying deliberately?
Or that bad karma can be made by other forms of false speech?

I'd have guessed that the speech is divisive and rooted in conceit, but what do I know ... perhaps (as implied) it was seen as rooted in some intentional deception for profit.
There's another word mentioned later ...

what is not actual: a-bhūta-vādī - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates 'what is not factual', and Bhikkhu Bodhi: 'what is not fact'.

... in the fourth general category i.e. of useless and unprofitable. Maybe that's more specifically "non-factual".

Piya Tan wrote:

The fourth precept is against falsehood, against communicating what is untrue, harsh, disharmonious and useless. This is again something natural: if there is no truth, then it is no use of my writing about all this. You would have wasted your time reading this! Truth is the very basis of wholesome human communication.

So possibly musāvādā -- false speech, one type of wrong speech -- is sometimes also used to refer to wrong speech in general, any or all of the four types.

I expect that the Pali word for wrong (by which I mean, the opposite of Right, or sammā) is probably micchā -- see micchādiṭṭhi.

And what is right speech?
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammāvācā?
Avoiding speech that’s false, divisive, harsh or nonsensical.
Yā kho, bhikkhave, musāvādā veramaṇī, pisuṇāya vācāya veramaṇī, pharusāya vācāya veramaṇī, samphappalāpā veramaṇī—
This is called right speech.
ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, sammāvācā.

If refraining from "nonsensical speech" was contrary to the five precepts, the content on Buddhist Stack Exchange would be very limited.


text:
The five incurable actions

"There are these five inhabitants of the states of deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable. Which five? One who has killed his/her mother, one who has killed his/her father, one who has killed an arahant, one who — with a corrupted mind — has caused the blood of a Tathagata to flow, and one who has caused a split in the Sangha. These are the five inhabitants of the states of deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable."
AN 5.129

If someone tries to kill an arahant, Buddha or their parents but they don’t get hurt even a little bit, do you still go to hell for “attempting” to kill them? Or is it only incurable if you have succeeded in killing them?

Since going to hell is a dangerous experiment to conduct, let's focus instead on what we can all verify. In particular, note that action conditioned by ignorance in body, speech or mind cause pleasure and pain to arise.

AN4.171:1.1: “Mendicants, as long as there’s a body, the intention that gives rise to bodily action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself.
AN4.171:1.2: As long as there’s a voice, the intention that gives rise to verbal action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself.
AN4.171:1.3: As long as there’s a mind, the intention that gives rise to mental action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. But these only apply when conditioned by ignorance.

Killing is a bodily action. Thinking about killing is a mental action. Therefore, just thinking about killing a parent will cause pain and suffering. The difference between killing and thinking about killing a parent is that one cannot unkill a parent. But one can relinquish the thought of killing a parent--even if that thought arises again. And in relinquishing the thought of killing, one can also gradually relinquish ignorance. In this way, thinking about killing a parent is like standing on the edge of hell, leaning forward.
For those who fall into hell there is slim hope.

MN50:21.1: Then Māra Dūsī took possession of a certain boy, picked up a rock, and hit Vidhura on the head, cracking it open.
MN50:21.2: Then Vidhura, with blood pouring from his cracked skull, still followed behind the Buddha Kakusandha.
MN50:21.3: Then the Buddha Kakusandha turned his whole body, the way that elephants do, to look back, saying,
MN50:21.4: ‘This Māra Dūsī knows no bounds.’
MN50:21.5: And with that look Māra Dūsī fell from that place and was reborn in the Great Hell.

Once in Hell, the pain lasts for a very long time as one struggles to emerge from Hell. There is no "parole". There is no doctor nor cure (atekicchā). A sentence to Hell must be served in its entirety.

MN50:23.2: For ten thousand years I roasted in the annex of that Great Hell, experiencing the pain called ‘emergence’.

Eventually, Dūsī served his sentence and was released. And eventually, Dūsī became known as Moggallāna, one of the Gautama Buddha's chief disciples.
So rather than jump into Hell for ten thousand years, perhaps it is better to pull back from the precipice to Hell. Perhaps it is best to restrain and relinquish unskillful thoughts.

When a warrior strives and struggles in battle, their mind is already
low, degraded, and misdirected as they think:
Yo so, gāmaṇi,
yodhājīvo saṅgāme ussahati vāyamati, tassa taṁ cittaṁ pubbe gahitaṁ
dukkaṭaṁ duppaṇihitaṁ:
‘May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed,
or annihilated!’
His foes kill him and finish him off, and  when his
body breaks up, after death, he’s reborn in the hell called ‘The
Fallen’.
SN 42.3

From the sutta quote above, we see that the warrior who strives (ussahati) and struggles or exerts himself (vāyamati) in battle, is already deep in the low, degraded and misdirected mindset of killing.
Similarly, just having the fleeting thought of hurting the Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's mother, killing one's father or causing a schism in the Buddha's sangha, is not sufficient to be considered an incurable action.
It's an incurable action only when one strives (ussahati) and struggles or exerts himself (vāyamati) to commit those heinous acts, regardless of whether he has actually been successful or not, just as in the case of the warrior in battle.
So, yes, even an unsuccessful intentional and deliberate attempt to perform these wicked acts would be incurable.

The OP asked in the comments to the effect of: What about Angulimala who killed many humans and attempted to kill the Buddha, but eventually became an arahant?
When Angulimala attempted to kill the Buddha, he did not know that it was the Buddha or an arahant. He only saw a monk walking alone along the road.
So he did not have the intention to kill the Buddha. He only had the intention to kill a monk.
It's just like the difference between intentionally killing an unknown woman who the killer did not know to be his mother, and intentionally killing his own mother knowingly. The latter carries more terrible consequences than the former.
Please read the story of Chakkhupala in the commentary of Dhammapada 1 and also the quote:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect." - AN 6.63

Karma is based on intention in Buddhism. Karma is not a universal system of justice.

The sutta below clearly shows that merely thinking about hurting Ven. Sariputta did not cause karmic consequences for the yakkha.
However, intentionally striving and exerting himself to hurt Ven. Sariputta caused the yakkha to experience karmic consequences, even if Ven. Sariputta was not successfully hurt the way he intended him to be.
This shows that striving and exerting oneself results in karmic consequences, whether or not the intended action reached its intended outcome.

And on that occasion two yakkhas who were companions were flying from
north to south on some business or other. They saw Ven. Sāriputta —
his head newly shaven — sitting in the open air. Seeing him, the first
yakkha said to the second, "I'm inspired to give this contemplative a
blow on the head."
When this was said, the second yakkha said to the first, "Enough of
that, my good friend. Don't lay a hand on the contemplative. He's an
outstanding contemplative, of great power & great might."
A second time, the first yakkha said to the second, "I'm inspired to
give this contemplative a blow on the head."
A second time, the second yakkha said to the first, "Enough of that,
my good friend. Don't lay a hand on the contemplative. He's an
outstanding contemplative, of great power & great might."
A third time, the first yakkha said to the second, "I'm inspired to
give this contemplative a blow on the head."
A third time, the second yakkha said to the first, "Enough of that, my
good friend. Don't lay a hand on the contemplative. He's an
outstanding contemplative, of great power & great might."
Then the first yakkha, ignoring the second yakkha, gave Ven. Sāriputta
a blow on the head. And with that blow he might have knocked over an
elephant seven or eight cubits tall, or split a great rocky crag. But
right there the yakkha — yelling, "I'm burning!" — fell into the Great
Hell.
Now, Ven. Moggallāna — with his divine eye, pure and surpassing the
human — saw the yakkha give Ven. Sāriputta a blow on the head. Seeing
this, he went to Ven. Sāriputta and, on arrival, said to him, "I hope
you are well, friend Sāriputta. I hope you are comfortable. I hope you
are feeling no pain."
"I am well, friend Moggallāna. I am comfortable. But I do have a
slight headache."
"How amazing, friend Sāriputta! How astounding! How great your power &
might! Just now a yakkha gave you a blow on the head. So great was
that blow that he might have knocked over an elephant seven or eight
cubits tall, or split a great rocky crag. But all you say is this: 'I
am well, friend Moggallāna. I am comfortable. But I do have a slight
headache'!"
"How amazing, friend Moggallāna! How astounding! How great your power
& might! Where you saw a yakkha just now, I didn't even see a dust
devil!"
Ud 4.4

Then how did Angulimala get cured? He still killed a lot of humans and attempted to kill the Buddha

The sutta seems to be suggesting that if you die while thinking “ ‘May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed, or annihilated!’”, you would be reborn in hell.

How can you be guilty of ie matricide if your parents are alive? Degraded doesn't mean degraded to the point equal to that of having done. If the two were equal then the act has no karmic potency and is ethically neutral. Wrong answer, proven by contradiction. If you were correct then Angulimalla would not have been able to become an Arahant because he tried to kill the Buddha, it is said that he exhausted himself trying to kill the Buddha and initially planned on murdering his mother iirc.

@Usefuldonut When Angulimala attempted to kill the Buddha, he did not know that it was the Buddha or an arahant. He only saw a monk walking alone along the road.

So he did not have the intention to kill the Buddha. He only had the intention to kill a monk.

@ruben2020 He did not know it was the Buddha but that doesn’t matter. The Buddha is still Buddha. If someone kills an arahant, thinking it was just a normal monk, he would still be destined to hell because the monk turned out to be an arahant. However, if that arahant uses his psychic powers to completely prevent the killer from killing him, then the killer is not destined for hell because he didn’t kill the arahant.

@Usefuldonut please read the story of Chakkhupala in the commentary of Dhammapada 1 and also the quote "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." (AN 6.63). Karma is based on intention in Buddhism. Karma is not a universal system of justice.

I can see where you're going with this. It might have been helpful to include how sankharas play a role in determining an outcome, since sankharas are per-conditioned internal troughs or grooves where thoughts, speech and actions naturally incline themselves. These three aspects lead to actions (karma) which in turn render a new conditioned situation, which in this instance one might call the apayas or the woeful realms.

@Max The important word here is intention or cetana.

I assumed you would be able to fill in the gaps. My apologies.

@Max Are you trying to describe how intention arises in the mind? This is discussed in other answers like this one discussing the relationship between vitakka, vicara and papanca i.e. chains of thought processes.

Usually, one who fails in following his intention, based on wrong view, sees himself right after his fail in hell. Think on crazy people after destructive things now hold back in performing them material. Likewise a person who desire to hold on wrong view, but fails to get approve. This, reflected, might release not only from the target of the adept here but also from it's underlying similarity. Just look right here, good householder.
Kamma has three/four ways of progress, by body, by signs, speech in order a deed, by rejoice and approve. Destruction and harm in one of those ways has it's hellish results. Not having a gun or not reaching out being handicapped doesn't prevent from kamma. Otherwise education camps and prisons would be good ways to make ways of people generally better.
Btw. holding on grave wrong views is the sixth, a 'problem' most modern people have, incapable to get the Dhammas track.
So take care when thinking gaming is just a game and watching movies and news just entertainment.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Your mind accusing you
How do I deal with my mind accusing me of something I’m not doing?
For example, if you are walking, and your mind tells you that you are killing insects or bacteria, how do you deal with it?
Or
For example, if your skin gets itchy and you want to scratch but your mind tells you that you are killing ants or bacteria that might be causing your skin to be itchy. Your original intention was to scratch your skin because it’s itchy but your mind tells you that you are going to kill insects or bacteria that might be on your skin, you don’t listen to your mind and scratch your skin anyway. Is this bad karma?
Sorry if this is hard to understand. I try to make it clear.

Bacteria do not appear to be "breathing creatures" therefore appear excluded from the 1st precept.
The 1st precept is about intentional killing therefore excludes non-intentional killing of insects.

The commentary to Dhammapada 1 precisely addresses the topic of unintentionally killing insects:

On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala (who was blind) came
to pay homage to the Buddha at
the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha.
The
Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you
had not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living
insects. Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he
could have no intention of killing and so was quite innocent." .....
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have
mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an
evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the
hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

Kamma is tied to volition, the precepts are there to establish minimum guidelines for "good" behaviour, but try to understand the why. As Dhammadhatu pointed out, the first precept relates to intentional killing, it exists to prevent actions based on hatred and ill-will, which generate bad kamma, i.e., more hatred and ill-will. If you are not acting out of hatred, then you are not conditioning your mind to indulge in hatred and so are not generating "hate-kamma".
As for dealing with your mind, remember that you are not your thoughts. Don't be afraid of them, see them arise and pass away, don't delight in them nor be ashamed of them. And, more importantly, be kind and patient to them, thought patterns are a habit which can be unlearned, but only through patience and understanding.

My friend, you are "thinking too much"...:)
"thinking too much" is a Volition in 5 aggregates, this is when our thinking is out of dhamma, out of 4NT, out of N8FP.
Try to bring your thought back to knowing exactly what your body is doing, aware of what your body is doing and nothing else.  Ask yourself "what am I doing now?" if your mind is cloudy.
Hopefully, your mind will back to it calm state and out of the "thinking too much" mode.

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


text:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Why there are clothes , why food , why shelter , why surprise , why anger , why love , why disgust , why father , why mother , why child, why atom , why Einstein , why Buddha and also why Universe?
Buddha said sabbe sankhara anicca (all conditioned things are impermanent) ... therefore all things, whether tangible or intangible are anicca (impermanent) but why? Why not nothing? No conditionality ever?

Such a long, thoughtful list and you never mentioned taxation.

I think in physics its called as anthrophic principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Is this a question about Buddhism (doctrine or practice)?

This sounds like the type of philosophical questions that is mentioned in the Acintita 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.

You just cannot speculate on things like this. It will make you mad, says the Buddha.
It also doesn't help with the path to end suffering - see Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. This means such type of questioning has no practical value.
From MN 63:

“Here, venerable sir, while I was alone in meditation, the following
thought arose in my mind: ‘These speculative views have been left
undeclared by the Blessed One…If he does not declare these to me, then
I will abandon the training and return to the low life.’ If the
Blessed One knows ‘the world is eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare
to me ‘the world is eternal’; if the Blessed One knows ‘the world is
not eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare to me ‘the world is not
eternal.’ If the Blessed One does not know either ‘the world is
eternal’ or ‘the world is not eternal, ’ then it is straightforward
for one who does not know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I
do not see.’
“If the Blessed One knows ‘the world is finite,’…‘the world is
infinite,’…‘the soul is the same as the body,’…‘the soul is one thing
and the body another,’…‘after death a Tathāgata exists,’ …’after death
a Tathāgata does not exist,’…If the Blessed One knows ‘after death a
Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare
that to me; if the Blessed One knows ‘after death a Tathāgata neither
exists nor does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare that to me. If
the Blessed One does not know either ‘after death a Tathāgata both
exists and does not exist’ or ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists
nor does not exist,’ then it is straightforward for one who does not
know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’”
“How then, Mālunkyāputta, did I ever say to you: ‘Come, Mālunkyāputta,
lead the holy life under me and I will declare to you “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Did you ever tell me: ‘I will lead the
holy life under the Blessed One, and the Blessed One will declare to
me “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists
nor does not exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“That being so, misguided
man, who are you and what are you abandoning?
“If anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
meanwhile that person would die. Suppose, Mālunkyāputta, a man were
wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and
companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him.
The man would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow
until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin
or a merchant or a worker.’ And he would say: ‘I will not let the
surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man
who wounded me;…until I know whether the man who wounded me was tall
or short or of middle height;… until I know whether the man who
wounded me was dark or brown or golden-skinned;…until I know whether
the man who wounded me lives in such a village or town or city;…until
I know whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a cross-bow;
…until I know whether the bowstring that wounded me was fibre or reed
or sinew or hemp or bark;…until I know whether the shaft that wounded
me was wild or cultivated;… until I know with what kind of feathers
the shaft that wounded me was fitted—whether those of a vulture or a
heron or a hawk or a peacock or a stork;…until I know with what kind
of sinew the shaft that wounded me was bound—whether that of an ox or
a buffalo or a deer or a monkey;…until I know what kind of arrowhead
it was that wounded me—whether spiked or razor-tipped or curved or
barbed or calf-toothed or lancet-shaped.’ “All this would still not be
known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Mālunkyāputta,
if anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me: “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
meanwhile that person would die.

Yes, speculative philosophy might make us an Immanuel Kant, a Hegel, a Jean-paul Sartre, a Camus, nothing more. We may win the Nobel , but will stay angry, vicious, dissatisfied, sad. Let us rather enter the very marrow of Reality, as it were, and go beyond conditionality into the wordless , the Unconditioned Anuttara - Nibbana. Metta. – Sushil Fotedar

@SushilFotedar awesome

The Buddha thought everything is composed of elements (MN 115) and, for conditioned elements, the process of conditioning, called 'idappaccayatā' (SN 12.20).
Since the Buddha said the cessation without remainder of the four physical elements cannot be known (DN 11), it is inferred how the four elements came to be also cannot be known.
Therefore, the Buddha taught the following:

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

'I will not engage in talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, or Unbinding — i.e., talk about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.' In this way he is alert there. MN 122

Why not nothing?

Is conjoined with or can be posed alternatively

why something?

The answer is

Because something [else]

If one answered

Because of not-something

If it is isn't a something among somethings then it can not be a cause. Therefore the answer to 'why something' is always 'because something'.
If you know what kind of answer the questioneer is looking for then one can give a more useful answer but that is only because you know exactly what kind of answer would satisfy the questioneer.
Ie if you are happy and someone asks why you are happy then you do not explain to them the dependent origination of perception, the quantum biology and which exact circumstances lead to here & now. Time is thought of as being beginningless and therefore the amount of information that needs to be conveyed to fully answer a simple "why?" is impossible to calculate or measure and therefore because is generally a good answer.
You can also see that when you flip the question back to

Why not nothing?

It gets trickier because it asserts two things:

That not-something is a truth like something is a truth. So there are two possible states that are antagonistic.
Not-something is being caused by something

Because of the latter assertion this question as posed is useless and harmful in Buddhist training because it asserts

there is a not-something which isn't included in everything
this not-something is caused not uncaused.

Latter assertion essential makes the whole theory contradict itself because if it is caused then it must be a part of everything which is caused, it must be included in that classification of everything as "everything caused".
To the questioneer this expression 'not something', for meaning, is something imaginary that he conceived of somehow and is essentially asking why his fantasy isn't a truth.
In general, the expression "everything", "something", "not-something" these are crucial terms in the way one arranges the Dhamma in the mind and in the early buddhist texts there is also talk of something not included among everything but it is clearly not the semantic referent of op question because that dhamma is spoken of as 'uncaused' and therefore 'why' doesn't apply to it.
It is very important to not confuse the two not-somethings.

Annihilation is not Buddha's teaching.
One may freely make a decision if to follow Buddha's teaching, after listening to the dhamma, contemplating the dhamma, practicing the dhamma, but not to accepting or rejecting the dhamma base on one's feeling, understanding and perceptions.
Find out more by experiencing the dhamma yourself.

Why there are clothes
It seems to me the answer is, "there are (they are), because mother and father made them for us."
Buddha said sabbe sankhara anicca (all conditioned things are impermanent)
A slightly different translation might be, all "fabricated", all "constructed", all "put-together", all "compound" things (are impermanent).
And to some extent we're taught to fabricate things in our mind, and to name what we see.
Why not nothing?
Perhaps there is nothing, instead or as well -- a Buddhist doctrine which says that there is "no thing" -- I'm thinking of sunyata, the doctrine about "emptiness". But I find it complicated to explain.
No conditionality ever?
Now possibly you could be asking about enlightenment (though it doesn't seem you were) -- liberation from the Wheel of Becoming.
Even then I think people agree that, until parinibbana, consciousness continues (including an ability to name things).

i marked this down because it gives the impression dependent origination is about the origination of the physical universe rather than about the origination of sorrow & grief. Also, in the sutta, it appears the only entity thinking & searching for consciousness continuing after the ending of life was Mara

You wouldn't say that the Buddha was conscious -- or at least that "consciousness continued" -- knew what was happening, able to talk to people, remember place names, make plans, and so on?

I'm not sure I distinguish what you call "the physical universe" from mental constructs. Doing so -- the split between subjective and objective, real and ideal, physical and mental -- might be an obsession or assumption of Western philosophy (which I've never really studied).

I'm not sure I distinguish what you call "the physical universe" from mental constructs = Soliplism


text:
How do we break an attachment with the Buddha Himself?
We Buddhists talk about non-attachment in our relationships, but after breaking all the samsaric attachments, how do we break the last attachment with the Buddha and may be also His teachings?
When the Buddha said 'appo-dipo bhava' ('be a light unto yourself') is that what he is pointing towards?

Would you not rather Ask why anyone might want to do that? Quite separately, how could  'appo-dipo bhava' ('be a light into yourself') affect the Question?

Why is there an attachment with Buddha in the first place?

For those attached to the form or personality of the Buddha, he taught to focus on the Dhamma (teachings) instead.
From Vakkali Sutta:

“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.”
“Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body? One who sees
the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma. For in seeing the
Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma.

Brilliant answer

This question is analogical to the question 'how do we abandon the desire to abandon all desire?'
The answer to these questions is like this:

"'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'I hope that I, too, will — through the ending of the fermentations — enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.' Then he eventually abandons craving, having relied on craving. 'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. - AN 4.159

As to how to do, by developing the four frames of mindfulness, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors of awakening, the noble eightfold path.
Here is on attachment to Dhamma:

Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. [7] Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"
"No, lord."
"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." - MN 22

I feel like this clearly illustrates the Why, but not the How.

It's not an answer people want to hear... the four frames of mindfulness, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors of awakening, the noble eightfold path. People want a different answer, more practical, less to study, in simple terms, in a few words, in own words, easy to understand, an improvement to their already sophisticated knowledge, psychologically pleasing, bias conforming, mindblowing and no meditation required... If there was an illustration on how to Arahantships with a 5 minute breathing exercize i would tell you.

The How is a fruit of zazen.

@Buddhism. I'm baffled by this as well - people keep asking how to do it like there's some new recipe. We have the Buddha's teaching and the way to freedom is The Noble Eightfold Path. It seems like this wanting to add something new to the teaching is a Western phenomena. I don't see this happening in Asian culture. The Buddha's teaching is a complete teaching in and of itself and needs nothing added to it or subtracted from it.

@Andromeda Perhaps it's a matter of not understanding, not of going for the shortcut. There are no shortcuts, all journeys worth taking are long, but it helps to understand the directions.

@Mast. I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm not talking about shortcuts. I'm talking about the Buddha's complete teaching. As I said, it seems to be popular these days that people are trying to change and add to the teaching which is not necessary. We have a complete teaching taught by a fully enlightened being. No more is needed.

It is difficult for people to understand that the discourses of the Buddha are as good of an explaination as one can get and that the expression can not be improved upon or explained in terms of something else. The instruction is to memorize the dhamma as it is taught, then pondering until coming to agreement one becomes willing to exert effort and eventually realizes for himself those meditative releases and awakens to the truth which is hard to see.

This is (again) the old allegory of the finger pointing at the moon.

When we are far away from the Buddha (at the beginning of the path) we just see the Buddha with his arm upraised
When we get closer we see that he is pointing at something, though we can't quite see what that is
When we get closer still, we start to get a sense of what he's pointing at, but we still look back to him to try to trace the path of his finger
When we are right beside him we suddenly see the moon, and we never need to look at the Buddha again

The Buddha is the finger pointing at the moon, and while there's nothing wrong with showing reverence for that, he would not have wanted us to be stuck staring at him when there is a moon to be seen.

Just observe the arisen defilement with mindfulness until you can be free from it.
Letting go is not something you actively do - it happens through impartial observation (Vipassana meditation) which leads to understanding of things as they are, which in turn leads to letting go. It's a process.

By the very proceeds of practice grows a balance sheet the sum total of which later becomes the finalising figure in a spiritual curriculum vitae. It denotes the personal fortunes one has amassed that now define your current identity and which is carried around and flaunted in various ways.
The teachings, which have touched you deeply, now become like golden chains. In that sense, we walk into a bit of a booby-trap - yet again.
Chogyam Trungpa nails this question with such a masterful wisdom in his book called Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. I highly recommend you get hold of this book. It's full of absolute gems for people wishing to rid themselves of the spiritual identities obtained from the context they have been working within. Here is a small excerpt...

Ego is able to convert everything to its own use, even spirituality. For example, if you have learned of a particularly
beneficial meditation technique of spiritual practice, then ego's
attitude is, first to regard it as an object of fascination and,
second to examine it. Finally, since ego is seeming solid and
cannot really absorb anything, it can only mimic. Thus ego tries to
examine and imitate the practice of meditation and the meditative
way of life. When we have learned all the tricks and answers of the
spiritual game, we automatically try to imitate spirituality, since
real involvement would require the complete elimination of ego, and
actually the last thing we want to do is to give up the ego
completely. However, we cannot experience that which we are trying
to imitate; we can only find some area within the bounds of ego that
seems to be the same thing. Ego translates everything in terms of
its own state of health, its own inherent qualities. It feels a
sense of great accomplishment and excitement at have been able to
create such a pattern. At last it has created a tangible
accomplishment, a confirmation of its own individuality.
If we become successful at maintaining our
self-consciousness through spiritual techniques, then genuine
spiritual development is highly unlikely. Our mental habits become
so strong as to be hard to penetrate. We may even go so far as to
achieve the totally demonic state of complete "Egohood."

Worldly attachment is due to wrong view.  Per Noble 8 Fold Path, right view is to understand 4 Noble Truth, is not by attaching to Buddha; is to understand how the dhamma work, is not to attach to the dhamma because it is HIS teaching.
Attaching to Buddha has no benefit to us, as we are the one who walk the path of liberation, thus how can one have attachment to Buddha if we truly learn and practice what he said (dhamma)?


text:
How to deal with people who try to prove your compassion is fake?
Some people believe that their compassion is holier than yours. Firstly they do not understand what compassion is and Secondly they question your genuineness of compassion.
I will not explain compassion here but will ask you ... How to deal with people who try to humiliate you on the genuineness of your compassion?

This question (and the original question it is a copy of) is asking about a situation without describing what the situation actually was. Instead, the author summarized their judgement of the situation and asked the question based on that judgment. (The judgement being, "idiots...holier than you...do not understand... humiliate... try to prove your compassion is fake"). This is not useful because the judgement itself may be biased but we are not given enough information to be able to assess that. We are left with no choice but to take the author's assessment at the face value.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

This is the chance to cultivate and practise the brahmavihara of equanimity (upekkha), in addition to compassion (karuna).
From The Four Sublime States by Ven. Nyanaponika, where he discusses the relationship between equanimity and compassion:

Equanimity rooted in insight is the guiding and restraining power for
the other three sublime states. It points out to them the direction
they have to take, and sees to it that this direction is followed.
Equanimity guards love and compassion from being dissipated in vain
quests and from going astray in the labyrinths of uncontrolled
emotion. Equanimity, being a vigilant self-control for the sake of the
final goal, does not allow sympathetic joy to rest content with humble
results, forgetting the real aims we have to strive for.
Equanimity, which means "even-mindedness," gives to love an even,
unchanging firmness and loyalty. It endows it with the great virtue of
patience. Equanimity furnishes compassion with an even, unwavering
courage and fearlessness, enabling it to face the awesome abyss of
misery and despair which confront boundless compassion again and
again. To the active side of compassion, equanimity is the calm and
firm hand led by wisdom — indispensable to those who want to practice
the difficult art of helping others. And here again equanimity means
patience, the patient devotion to the work of compassion.

How to practise equanimity?
Firstly, have confidence in your good deeds and intentions.

If, however, fear or uncertainty should arise, we know the refuge
where it can be allayed: our good deeds (kamma-patisarana). By
taking this refuge, confidence and courage will grow within us —
confidence in the protecting power of our good deeds done in the past;
courage to perform more good deeds right now, despite the discouraging
hardships of our present life. For we know that noble and selfless
deeds provide the best defense against the hard blows of destiny, that
it is never too late but always the right time for good actions.

Secondly, let go association with the self:

The second insight on which equanimity should be based is the Buddha's
teaching of no-self (anatta). This doctrine shows that in the
ultimate sense deeds are not performed by any self, nor do their
results affect any self. Further, it shows that if there is no self,
we cannot speak of "my own." It is the delusion of a self that creates
suffering and hinders or disturbs equanimity. If this or that quality
of ours is blamed, one thinks: "I am blamed" and equanimity is shaken.
If this or that work does not succeed, one thinks: "My work has
failed" and equanimity is shaken. If wealth or loved ones are lost,
one thinks: "What is mine has gone" and equanimity is shaken.
To establish equanimity as an unshakable state of mind, one has to
give up all possessive thoughts of "mine," beginning with little
things from which it is easy to detach oneself, and gradually working
up to possessions and aims to which one's whole heart clings. One also
has to give up the counterpart to such thoughts, all egoistic thoughts
of "self," beginning with a small section of one's personality, with
qualities of minor importance, with small weaknesses one clearly sees,
and gradually working up to those emotions and aversions which one
regards as the center of one's being. Thus detachment should be
practiced.

How can that truly know the virtue of compassion humiliate others?
If their reproach is genuine with goodwill to correct your mistake you should contemplate on their reproach before you aim to respond. Contemplate on your compassionate acts weigh them against their reproach. Virtue is best seen in action!
After contemplating, If you still have a conviction that they are mistaken in their understanding of the virtue of compassion, and if they are asking to learn from you, then correct them.
If you know how to farm and feed your family what is there humiliating if someone says you don't know how to farm? What reason is there even to answer? Perhaps you may inquire how he/ she farm to learn new ways, but I don't see the humiliation.

A Dhamma practitioner should be firm & unwavering in their conviction towards the efficacy of their virtue & compassion and remain untouched by criticism.
One should observe my example of being unmoving towards the cultural marxist politically correct opponents & subverters of Dhamma

Brilliant answer !!! Sir sometimes your style surprises me ...

We practise to be free.


text:
Logic of Emptiness still unconvincing. Please help explain
I've been a practitioner of Vipassana and Mahamudra for 2 years now. One thing quite bothering me is various explanations from different teachers on emptiness logically disturbing...
Usually, it goes like this:

The flower before you seems real. Now get closer, you no longer see flower, but just leaves, stem. Even closer, you "see" atoms, electrons, etc.
See? the flower is "empty" of inherent existence. The same goes for "self". Try search for the "self" in your thoughts, arm, leg, etc. and you would find nothing.

Of course I could appreciate this mentally helps in someway in practice. But something falls short.
First, it feels "outdated" to me, in a post-calculus world, that it denies the validity of an aggregate object, by pointing towards an infinitesimally small part of it. Zeno paradox?
Secondly, the requirement of "look closer" (or farther) seem to assert the perceiver model. That logic (or its inverse) would seem to imply that, "in order for something A to be truly existent, that thing needs to be A in all perceivable cases". That A would then seem to be only possible as some kind of "totality", or awareness itself. So that felt like a semantics game then.
I'm sure there're better ways to explain the Buddhist emptiness logic in a more modern compatible way. Please enlighten me.

In a larger philosophical (outside of Buddhism) context, you may be interested in "Mereology" which is the branch of metaphysics that tackles the problems of composition.

Notice the mental constructs involved in wholes, in parts, in levels.

Your confusion is clear as day to me. :) As is the true meaning of "emptiness". The challenge is how to explain it to you in a way you can understand. :)
You are stuck on this idea of "object" being something that exists ontologically. Whether it's made of parts, whether it's a transient aggregate that will eventually fall apart, right now it is real, it exists, regardless of the observer, you say.
The problem is not that it does not exist. The problem is that in the ontological reality there are no distinct objects. Whatever actually exists is delineated into "objects" by the perceiving mind.
This delineation (identification of objects in time and space, and by their characteristics) depends on the scale and perspective of observation.
You think, first the objects exist, and then we identify them. But it is the opposite, first we pick our perspective and criteria (either deliberately or, more often, because we were conditioned to see things in a certain way) and then we delineate and designate objects. So what is it that exists before delineation? Whatever it is, it's not "objects". Let's call it Emptiness ;)
Because the range of your perspectives is very limited, it seems to you that the way objects are usually designated/delineated in our society is the only way that makes sense, and therefore it seems to you that this way to designate them is identical with their ontological nature.
Take a chair, for example. When we say "chair" is empty we don't mean that nothing at all exists out there. We mean that the delineation and designation of objects by e.g. humans, ants, and some hypothetical aliens is potentially different. An ant perceives chair as part of the landscape. An alien living a different temporal scale may perceive chair as a final phase in life of a tree.
And yet, a chair is a chair, you'd say, even if some other species ignorantly misperceive it. We know that this in fact is a chair, you say - and this is where you're wrong, according to Mahayana Buddhism. This is just a habit of anthropocentric thinking, that's all.
Of course most of the objects we deal with in our social reality were specifically designed for convenient usage in some pragmatic contexts. This tricks our mind into confusing their symbolical meaning in our reality (their pragmatic function) with their essence. But if you go outside human world, ambiguity of delineation/designation will be easier to spot. Take the clouds for example, or the mountains, or the water streams, or the natural species - especially if you observe them over long time. Do they have rigid well-defined identities? No, they are notoriously hard to delineate.
It's not just delineation though, it goes even deeper than defining spatial/temporal boundaries of our objects. The thing is, in the act of identification we focus on certain properties of phenomena and ignore other aspects or properties. If we were to focus on other properties we would not just draw different boundaries, our phenomena would be delineated by other measurements than their positions or sizes in time and space. Again, think about the boundaries of species, in what space are they located?
Everything exists in some way, sure, but nothing exists as conveniently separate, clearly identifyable, qualitatively static, and with its true workings perfectly matching our idea of its external appearance - as naive people and children tend to imagine.
Nothing is as solid as it appears.
This is what's meant by Emptiness, and the more your perspective expands the deeper it gets. It's not about existence vs non-existence, it's about conceptualization, identification, recognition, delineation, designation, reification - and getting mentally and emotionally attached to spatial/temporal/conceptual abstractions.

I quite like this answer. I suppose there's still a subtle skeptic voice in my head that says: but wait, regardless of what "chair" do any sentient being perceive or how the boundary should be drawn .. the atoms/electrons are there! if it tries to move through it, it will encounter repulsion / gravity. Isn't that undeniable?

Yes but what does that prove? You used density as a key characteristic for identifying your object. If you chose magnetism, radioactivity, temperature, or electrical conductance as the key characteristic you would delineate a different object or objects. If you picked a different scale for measuring density, the difference between wood and air would be negligible. Etc.

The boundary of the chair isn't as clearly defined as you might think. If you go to molecular/atomic levels, its lowest point is already hovering above the floor and if you then use different models of atoms, you can also get different locations for that border, even inherently fuzzy ones (uncertainty principle). Or parts of dust have become integrated into the chair or into the floor or parts of the floor randomly moved into the chair or back, … Here's a good VSauce video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE8rkG9Dw4s In the end, a chair is just a collection of molecules (and …

… more) that has been given a name.

I'll try to explain this from the Theravada perspective, which I think is more or less the same as Madhyamaka emptiness, once you analyze it deeply.
In addition to this answer, please also see "Linking Madhyamaka emptiness to Theravada emptiness through papanca".
From Sutta Nipata 4.14, we read:

"I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer,
about seclusion & the state of peace.
Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
clinging to nothing in the world?"
"He should put an entire stop
to the root of objectification-classifications:
'I am the thinker.'

Objectification-classification in this translation means the same as "reification".
Ven. Thanissaro, the translator, commented on this:

On objectification-classifications and their role in leading to
conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to MN 18. The perception,
"I am the thinker" lies at the root of these classifications in that
it reads into the immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I;
being/not-being; thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then
can proliferate into mental and physical conflict. The conceit
inherent in this perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become
unbound, one must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all
take for granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are
not inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able
to drop them.

In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.
When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.
Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.
These examples go to show that objects do not have the meaning given to it by the mind. In fact, some of these are not even objects, except that they have been objectified by the mind.
What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.
What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.
This concept is called papanca, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.
This does not mean that things don't exist, except in my mind. It means that things don't exist as how my mind thinks it does.
Let's say you see images of attractive people on a screen. To an ant, it's just lights of different colors. If a mouse sees them - it's just an image of what it may perceive as humans - a threat. But to you, they are attractive people. So why are they "attractive people"? It's because that's how your mind objectified and classified them relative to yourself. That's how your mind reified them. That's papanca.
Fully enlightened persons like the Buddha and the arahants see things the way they are, without objectifying and classifying them relative to the idea of the self.
So according to Snp 4.14, to put an end to reification, you must first put an end to the root of reification, which is the mental idea of the self, the thought "I am the thinker". And the way to achieve this is to increase wisdom and weaken ignorance. That would weaken craving, clinging, becoming and birth (of the idea of the self). For this, please see this answer on the South Indian Monkey Trap.
And how do you increase wisdom and weaken ignorance? For that, we have the Noble Eightfold Path.

What is amazing to me about your answers @ruben2020 is that they are so correct and beautifully written, but you're explaining (quite eloquently) the Madhyamaka doctrine of all things lacking the self of things as opposed to the self of persons. As we've discussed in other forums, you've said you don't think the Theravada posits the lack of self of things and only posits the lack of self of persons, but here you are expertly giving an account of the lack of self of things.

Part of the "philosophy of science" (as it was taught me in Physics class in school) is that there are different ways of looking at things, different levels of details -- e.g. sub-atomic physics, then chemistry, biology, maybe ecology after that, astro-physics -- not to even mention sociology, psychology, maths, and so on.
So these are different "levels" (of detail), different "models" (of so-called reality).
More of that "philosophy of science" was about how they test and evolve their models.
Various models are (or are not) useful -- e.g. have "predictive ability" (predict the future), or "descriptive ability" (describe or help to make sense of past observations or so-called "facts"), and different models are (or aren't) useful in the context of different problems or different types of (experimental) observation.
I expect (without really knowing) that the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness may be similar -- i.e. that whatever model of reality we grasp is only a model -- and that grasping a specific model may be unfortunate or unhappy, or not as useful as being less attached (to a specific model or view).
For further details I might reference other questions tagged sunyata but perhaps you reviewed those already. My main question on the subject was What is the purpose of the Mahayana 'emptiness' doctrine?
And if it isn't only to do with (being an antidote to) having fixed "views", it's also to do with having (or helping you to escape from) fixed "values" -- by which I'm refer to Persig's description of value rigidity -- especially when the value, rigidity, or attachment is "harmful" or "useless", though that might be subjective or observer-centric ... or, might be universal, I mean, agreed on by "the wise" at least.

Usually,it goes like this - the flower before you seems real. Now get closer, you no longer see flower, but just leaves, stem. Even closer, you "see" atoms, electrons, etc. See? the flower is "empty" of inherent existence. The same goes for "self". Try search for the "self" in your thoughts, arm, leg, etc. and you would find nothing.
Of coz I could appreciate this mentally helps in someway in practice. But sth. falls short.
First, it feels "outdated" to me, in a post-calculus world, that it denies the validity of an aggregate object, by pointing towards an infinitesimally small part of it. Zeno paradox?

As i understand it, this is close to what you are saying?

The expression presented to you is disagreeable as it assumes that one can indefinitely "zoom in" on a perceived object to perceive it's constituent objects and this is falsified by the zeno's paradox.

The expression presented to you is disagreeable because it assumes the existence of an object which becomes an object of perception, the object exists independetly of perception, the non-perceived object then becomes an object of perception when perceived and is spoken of as consisting of infinitely small elements. As you understand the expression posits objectification beyond a percepients frame of reference as well as an objectification of perception based on a particular frame of reference. This you disagree with on account of special relativity which demonstrates that one can not attribute the perceived qualities to what is thought of as not objectified based on the six sense media.

If this is close to the criticism you raised then you can rest assured that the early texts make it explicit that there is no objectfication beyond the six sense media and there are no objects repudiating the allness of the six classes of perception.
Perception is said to be conjoined with that which is called mind/consciousness/intellect and is thought of as principally arising as one thing and ceasing as another.
Perception and consciousness are thought of as conjoined because what one perceives that one cognizes. It is also held that what one perceives that one conceives; therefore the conception[formation] is also conjoined with percepience, what one conceives that one perceives, what one perceives that one cognizes.
Mind is spoken of as being the forerunner and creator of all formations but it isn't thought of as something persisting through time as one thing, it is an epistemological truth and inferrable element. It's cause & requisite is always past formations. Mind is thought of as conjoined with that which can be thought of as having an object and to be the conceiver & perceiver of that which is thought of as an object of that which has an object. Past, present & future classes[aggregates] of perception/feeling/consciousness/genesis have objects whereas the past, present & future classes of form [the perceived] are without an object.
The sematics are intricatly connected and are way to map & model the relations of inferable elements which can be established to be coming into play as one thinks about what is internal & external to what is thought of as a nervous system.

Yes, my first objection (in response to teachings I heard from e.g. Geshe Dorji) is close to your first point ("... as it assumes that one can indefinitely "zoom in" on a perceived object to perceive it's constituent objects and this is falsified by the zeno's paradox.")

That's because there is no logic to it.  Emptiness isn't apprehended by the discursive mind.  It is perceived directly.  One could roughly equate it to smelling.  How could you logically describe the sense of smell to someone who hasn't had that perception?  Any explanation you could offer would ultimately fall short.
Buddhist philosophy isn't a philosophy in a conventional Western sense.  It isn't a set of ideas about ideas or even a set of ideas about the nature of reality.  Buddhist philosophy is derived from the experience of emptiness, not the idea of emptiness.  To come at it without that initial experiential knowledge is to undermine your understanding and set yourself up for all kinds of ridiculous misunderstandings (eg Yogacara is a kind of idealism).
When you come to see emptiness for yourself, the philosophy takes on a radically different character.  The same words start to take on an entirely different set of meaning.  Once you have developed your "emptiness sense" you open yourself up to entirely different way of understanding.  Here, there is no logic.  There is only seeing and knowing.

There is much to like in this answer, but I'm afraid the first sentence can be harmful. There is no way to come at understanding emptiness or having the experiential understanding except through logic. Can you revise if you agree?

I don't agree with that.  Not at first, anyway. Emptiness is first noticed at the end of the breath, the spaces between thoughts, &c.  Here, logic is going to be an obstacle.  At most, one can say the statement "this is emptiness" is as much logic as is required for initial understanding.  Later, sure, investigation is required to deepen one's experience.  There is no furthering without vipassana.

I also think OPs concept of logic doesn't have relevance here.   There is none of that logic in regards to emptiness.

Ok, then it sounds like we're talking about different things re: emptiness. Maybe your answer will help the OP the most, I don't know. Unfortunately, I can't change the vote unless the answer is edited (which I will if you edit it :)

Eh.  I prefer my phrasing.  :)

@Yeshe Tenley - conventional logic operates through the understanding that objects of the world are discreet and distinct from each other. It is this type of mass prevailing logic that severely hinders the wisdom of emptiness, because we believe the body is one of those distinct and separate objects. I guess you could say logic is the common-sense faculty that drives the collective human consciousness leading to all sorts of calamitous tomfoolery. Understanding this is counter-intuitive - two words that could encompass the entirety of the teachings.

Richard Feynman, who definitely lived in the post-calculus world, once pondered flowers down to the atomic level and beyond. Feynman would also gladly point out the vast emptiness between those very atoms. Importantly, Feynman continuously pokes at conventional perceptions of a flower as being "real" and notes that the perception of an aggregate is an experience mediated by particles and forces that don't have precise boundaries.
And, like Feynman, the Buddha recommended a deep investigation of emptiness at the limits of perception:

MN121:12.5: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
MN121:12.7: That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.

Both Feynman and the Buddha were empirical--they both taught observation as the foundation for understanding. Neither Feynman nor the Buddha found ultimately reality in aggregates such as flowers, which are fundamentally empty.

You're mistaken if you think that Zeno's paradox is in contradiction, or as you said in the comment section, disprove the zooming-in method of teaching you noted.
Read Shantideva quoted below and you will see clearly where the method ends. It is not about zooming into to subatomic level to deny the inherent existence of a flower. It is also not about different perspectives like an alien seeing a chair or viewing a flower with an x-ray.
Please also read Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) against Zeno's paradox and you will be baffled by the similarity.

A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life' by Shantideva ##  ....

Even the parts can be divided into atoms, and an atom itself can be divided according to its cardinal directions. The section of a
cardinal direction is space, because it is without parts. Therefore,
an atom does not exist. 354. Tibetan:"... Since the cardinal
directions have no parts, they are like space. Therefore, atoms do not
exist

What discerning person would be attached to form, which is just like a dream? Since the body does not exist, then who is a woman and
who is a man?

If suffering truly exists, why does it not oppress the joyful? If delicacies and the like are a pleasure, why do they not please someone
struck by grief and so forth?

If it is not experienced because it is overpowered by something more intense, how can that which is not of the nature of experience be
a feeling?

[Objection:] Surely there is suffering in its subtle state while its gross state is removed. [Madhyamika:] If it is simply another
pleasure, then that subtle state is a subtle state of pleasure.

If suffering does not arise when the conditions for its opposite have arisen, does it not follow that a "feeling" is a false notion
created by conceptual fabrication?

Therefore, this analysis is created as an antidote to that false notion. For the meditative stabilizations that arise from the field of
investigations are the food of contemplatives.

If there is an interval between a sense-faculty and its object, where is the contact between the two? If there is no interval, they
would be identical. In that case, what would be in contact with what?

One atom cannot penetrate another, because it is without empty space and is of the same size as the other. When there is no
penetration, there is no mingling; and when there is no mingling,
there is no contact.

How, indeed, can there be contact with something that has no parts? If partlessness can be observed when there is contact,
demonstrate this.

It is impossible for consciousness, which has no form, to have contact; nor is it possible for a composite, because it is not a truly
existent thing, as investigated earlier.

Thus, when there is no contact, how can feeling arise? What is the reason for this exertion? Who could be harmed by what?

If there is no one to experience feeling and if feeling does not exist, then after understanding this situation, why, O craving, are
you not shattered?

The mind that has a dreamlike and illusion like nature sees and touches. Since feeling arises together with the mind, it is not
perceived by the mind.

What happens earlier is remembered but not experienced by what arises later. It does not experience itself, nor is it experienced by
something else.

There is no one who experiences feeling. Hence, in reality, there is no feeling. Thus, in this identityless bundle, who can be hurt by
it?

The mind is not located in the sense faculties, nor in form and other sense-objects, nor in between them. The mind is also not found
inside, nor outside, nor anywhere else.

That which is not in the body nor anywhere else, neither intermingled nor somewhere separate, is nothing. Therefore, sentient
beings are by nature liberated. 355

If cognition is prior to the object of cognition, in dependence on what does it arise? If cognition is simultaneous with the object of
cognition, in dependence on what does it arise?

If it arises after the object of cognition, from what would cognition arise? In this way it is ascertained that no phenomenon
comes into existence.

335 According to the Panjika, pp. 245-246, the mind that is not in the body nor somewhere else outside the body, that is neither
intermingled between those two, the body and outside thing, nor
separate from the body and present somewhere else, is ultimately
nothing, that is, it does not truly exist. It is only presented by
mental fabrication. The samsaric mind appears like an illusion because
it lacks an intrinsic nature. For that reason, sentient beings are
liberated by nature, because the natural nirvana (prakrti-nirvana),
which has the characteristic of the absence of intrinsic nature, is
always present in the streams of consciousness of all sentient
beings.

Dogen: "All beings do not see mountains and waters in the same way. Some beings see water as a jeweled ornament, but they do not regard jeweled ornaments as water. What in the human realm corresponds to their water? We only see their jeweled ornaments as water. Some beings see water as wondrous blossoms, but they do not use blossoms as water. Hungry ghosts see water as raging fire or pus and blood. Dragons see water as a palace or a pavilion. Some beings see water as the seven treasures or a wish-granting jewel. Some beings see water as a forest or a wall. ...

... Some see it as the Dharma nature of pure liberation, the true human body, or as the form of body and essence of mind. Human beings see water as water. Water is seen as dead or alive depending on causes and conditions. Thus the views of all beings are not the same." [...] "Water is neither strong nor weak, neither wet nor dry, neither moving no still, neither cold nor hot, neither existent nor non-existent, neither deluded nor enlightened."

... "The ultimate realm has one thousand kinds and ten thousand ways. When we think about the meaning of this, it seems that there is water for various beings but there is no original water-there is no water common to all types of beings. But water for these various kinds of beings does not depend on mind or body, does not arise from actions, does not depend on self or other. Water's freedom depends only on water. Therefore, water is not just earth, water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness. Water is not blue, yellow, red, white, or black. ...

... "Water is not forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or mind-objects. But water as earth, water, fire, wind, and space realizes itself. For this reason, it is difficult to say who is creating this land and palace right now or how such things are being created. To say that the world is resting on the wheel of space or on the wheel of wind is not the truth of the self or the truth of others. Such a statement is based only on a small view. People speak this way because they think that it must be impossible to exist without having a place on which to rest."

Yes, all good. But "Water" in that text means "Budhha nature".  With that in mind, It will read very differently ... same as his other colorful teaching about Buddha-nature ... such as....... "when you cook you should invite the Buddha from the Buddha Hall and make the Buddha into the vegetables"

Hmmm I don't think he has water metaphorically standing for Buddha nature from the get-go. I think it's more like he starts rambling about water and as he develops the theme he gets to the point where water is not really different from Buddha nature.

I think "Empty" here refers to, there is not an impermanent, unchanging essence, core, object or self that can independently (not depending on any conditions) exist.  All existences (as oppose to "Empty") of object/self subjected to changes and impermanent nature, thus no one can hold on to the object/self, and decide by their wish "I want object/myself to be like this, not to be like this, etc.  So long as conditions arises, the object/self will be like this, will be like that, and you are not able to hold on to it.  Because of the nature of cannot be holding on, and there is not a permanent object/self that you can hold on to, I think this is why referring to "Empty", and "Empty" is not referring to the flower you see in front of you is not exist.  It referring to the flower is impermanent, subject to change and if leaves and stem do not conditionally arise, you don't see the flower. Go further, if atoms do not conditionally arises in the leaves and stem, you do not see the leaves and stem, and hence do not see the flower.  And, what is inside the atom? is a flux of energy.
I hope I make things simple for understanding, but there are suttas available to explain this is great length in 12 dependent origination, 6 sense doors, 5 aggregates, and Anattalakkhana Sutta, all found in the Samyutta Nikaya.

As you are a practitioner of Mahamudra, any answer to this particular question should focus on Tibetan Buddhism, as there are different treatments of Emptiness in the various schools of Buddhism. Trying to make sense of these other views using the logical explanations of the teachings you are following may be causing some of your difficulty trying to make sense of it. I recommend a small book by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamatso Rinpoche called “Progressive Stages of Meditation On Emptiness” because it takes you through the different treatments, and he is a master of Mahamudra.
And if we are restricting ourselves to Tibetan Buddhism, it’s worth considering the following and why it was promulgated: Asanga (circa 300 AD) delineated 18 major vows and forty-six minor vows in the "Bodhisattvabhumi" section of the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra. These Bodhisattva vows are still used in all four major traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. In the eighteen major vows (as actions to be abandoned) are the following 2 which deal with teaching the doctrine of Emptiness:
11. Teaching emptiness to those whose minds are unprepared.
15. Falsely stating that oneself has realised profound emptiness and that if others meditate as one has, they will realize emptiness and become as great and as highly realized as oneself.

As you can see, trying to communicate an understanding of Emptiness to someone who has not had a direct meditative experience of it first is held to be a seriously bad thing to do. Why would that be? Because you cannot understand the ‘logic’ of it until you have first had that direct experience yourself. Telling someone ‘what’ it is ensures that they will never find it themselves, and thus will only ever have a conceptual (mis)understanding of it, because they imagine what it is like.
It’s similar to what happens when you go to see a movie based on a book you read. While reading the book you form your own image of the characters, but after seeing the movie, you can only ever see the actors’ faces and their performance of the characters. In regards to Emptiness, all these descriptions of ‘what’ it is, and what it is like, are not helping you overcome the problem of the ‘logic’ of their definitions, especially from the perspective of Mahamudra, since the definitions create a dualist observer structure of something understood by someone.

'Reductionism' is not necessarily and not inherently related to Emptiness
The flower itself, as a whole, has no self (ego) in it.
Similarly, each of the five aggregates, including consciousness ('the looker'), has no inherent self (ego) in them, if the mind can see clearly enough.