text:
What does Samsara mean to Buddhists? How is it meaningful?
The Buddhist way to see the Samsara, or the circle of life and death, is, according to my understanding:
Innumerable causes and effects.
Is this right?
Is there a special meaning conferred by this, to the practitioners of Buddhism? What does it mean to Buddhists?
In comparison, in my opinion, Hinduism delivers more meaning to its practitioners, with regards to Samsara, as seen in this Bhagavad Gita quote:
BG 7.14: My divine energy Maya, consisting of the three modes of nature, is very difficult to overcome. But those who surrender unto Me cross over it easily.
It gives a meaning. The existence is reflecting a super-consciousness, which is not unreal or trivial, it is a super-consciousness that reflects our actions, our feelings, our nature which create obstacles and mirror all craving for material world as the way routing far from the beginning point, the point inside a circle, the center, indeed.
I cannot perceive a reality that I should refuse for the nature of emptiness while I am living in this very reality, without at least a meaning of what it is.
After all, If it has no meaning, why would Gautama Buddha appear in this world, then disappear without saving all people inside the Samsara itself?
Isn't this a contradiction?
I would like to discuss the above peacefully. This is not a provocation. I'm sure Buddhism has a logical explanation for this and I would like to hear it from this forum.

It might be helpful for non-hindi speakers to know that the word samsara literally translates as the world. Not the planet earth. It can also come to imply the entire cosmos based on certain contexts.

And so I need to add this as well :
BG 16.19: Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men,I perpetually cast into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life. BG 16.20: Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, O son of Kuntī, such persons can never approach Me. Gradually they sink down to the most abominable type of existence.

16.19 I cast for ever those hateful, cruel, evil-doers in the worlds, the vilest of human beings, verily into the demoniacla classes. 16.20 Being born among the demoniacal species in births after births, the foods, without ever reaching Me, O son of Kunti, attain conditions lower than that.

16.19. These hateful, cruel, basest men, I hurl incessantly into the inauspicious demoniac wombs alone in the cycle of birth-and-death. 16.20. Having come to the demoniac womb, birth after birth, and not attaining Me at all, these deluded persons, therefore, pass to the lowest state, O son of Kunti !

16.19 Those cruel haters, worst among men in the world, I hurl those evil-doers into the wombs of demons only. 16.20 Entering into demoniacal wombs and deluded, birth after birth, not attaining Me, they thus fall, O Arjuna, into a condition still lower than that.

16.19 Those who thus hate Me, who are cruel, the dregs of mankind, I condemn them to a continuous, miserable and godless rebirth. 16.20 So reborn, they spend life after life, enveloped in delusion. And they never reach Me, O Prince, but degenerate into still lower forms of life.

I added these passages because they highlight some sort of Truth that is somehow shared by Buddhism as well , nether to say the similarities from Jainism and Buddhism on the Samsaric view) .In Jainism, the way of liberation is the ford (tirtha), and Tirthankaras "those making the ford" (from samsara to moksha) are supreme teachers. The same concept is found in Buddhism, which says that through enlightenment (bodhi) an individual crosses the river of samsara to attain liberation. Both religions deny the existence of a creator god

@ Doubtful Monk - The passages that you have added are neither from Buddhism nor from Jainism. They are from Bhagavada Gita, a truly precious work. It will help people who are unaware to mention that as well.

Others know not that (in this quarrel)
we perish;
those who realize this,
have their quarrels calmed thereby.

Well, let's start with the thought that 'meaning' is part of samsara: a focal object. Wanting meaning isn't much different than wanting fame, glory, power, wealth, or beautiful partners. If you have those things it can make your existence seem meaningful and wonderful; if you don't, your world can seem cruel and miserable. The Hindu teachings you're thinking of are a bit like the Socratic teaching that wisdom is the most important thing to possess, because when one has wisdom it guides one to all the other virtues. Align atman with brahman and the troubles of the world will ease: thus we have meaning.
However, the Buddha wasn't teaching how to live within samsara (how to give meaning to it). He was teaching how to understand samsara, in a way that transcends the limitations of speech (and meaning). The difficulty with 'meaning' is that — like all things of samsara — it's dualistic, and thus a double-edged sword. If we live a quiet, beautiful existence, we think: "I've found the meaning of life!". But if we fall off a cliff and lose our life savings paying medical bills, going forward as a crippled pauper, we wonder: "What have I done wrong to end up this way? What meaning does this have?". Buddhist philosophy is that the self which thinks these things is only a construct — a meaning-making construct; a problem-solving construct — and that the true nature of our existence goes beyond that 'self' and any meanings it makes.
Meanings are pleasantries. We can make meaning with the same casual good cheer that we say "hello!" to people on the street, but making more of it than that can lead us astray. The world will not deform itself to match the meanings we give to it.
I'm not dismissing Hinduism here, not in deference to Buddhism at any rate. Hinduism is a sophisticated philosophy in its own right, and if you follow its path far enough you'll come to understand and leave meaning in your wake. Before that, well... it can be comforting to have a self-reflective consciousness communing with you; it can be comforting to have a god watching over you; it can be comforting to have the ordered universe of karma or dao. Make the meanings that ease you along the path, and leave them where they fall when the path changes course.

so if the self is a problem-solving construct is there anything wrong with that?  i have a hammer, a screwdriver, etc..there is a usefulness. i want to keep that  around

@blue_ego: Ah, an analogy I've used before. It's one thing if someone picks up a hammer to drive a nail. It's quite another thing if that person forgets they are holding a hammer and walks around town swinging it. That latter person is at best awkward and at worst dangerous and intimidating. Most people don't get that the problem-solving mind can be put back in the toolshed between uses — it's a difficult intuition — so they walk around making a problem out of everything so they have something to apply that tool to.

yes it requires skillfulness...oh well

i guess what i'm saying is the idea doesn't do much..it's like throwing a blanket over some stuff, eventually the blanket comes off..

@blue_ego: Things are useful because they can be used by beings. But do we want to reduce beings to the status of things, so that beings are judged only by their usefulness?

if they are useful to themselves then perhaps we should let me be useful..let's be serious. the self is useful and it won't do any harm since it doesn't mean anything anyway.  it means attachment.

@blue_ego: Sure, the self is useful for this, or for that, or for other things. But it isn't useful in some universal/abstract sense (just as a hammer isn't useful in some u/a sense). The self has a particular function with respect to particular social contexts. The question is whether one can put it away when it's not needed.

Can’t we just ignore this auseful tool and hope it doesn’t get used?

@blue_ego: Sure, if you want, just the way someone could consciously carry a hammer in his hand all day, taking care not to smash it into things (and maybe avoiding china shops entirely). In fact, I'd say at a certain stage of development and in certain practices that's all one can do: be a witness to the thinking mind as it does what it does, because one just can't stop it. Would you prefer that as a way of life?

It’s just attachment to pleasure! Don’t blame me!

Adherents of many religions or philosophies often speak of their concepts as giving meaning to their lives, or being elegant when examined by the mind. They think this is proof that their religion must be true. Followers of those religions may look at Buddhism and think it doesn't give them enough meaning or intellectual elegance.
Sometimes religions have the concept of God as a caretaker or parent, and the provider of emotional support and comfort to the adherents. They think this is proof that their religion must be true. Followers of those religions may look at Buddhism and think Buddhists must be lonely without the emotional support provided by God.
Sometimes religions have very good music, which is pleasing to the ear and addictive to the mind, and adherents of those religion love it. They think this is proof that their religion must be true. Followers of those religions may look at Buddhism and feel Buddhists are missing out on the emotional pleasure of religious music.
As far as Buddhism is concerned, emotionally meaningful concepts, intellectually elegant concepts, emotionally soothing concepts and emotionally addictive music, are all pleasurable sensations to the six senses, including ears and mind. And they mainly appeal to emotion.
What's meaningful about Buddhism, is that it's empirical, i.e. based on experience. Here's an example below.
About consciousness, the Buddha taught the following, from MN 38:

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms
is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as
ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
& aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply
as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as
body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousnes

Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.
Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It does not exist independently connecting all beings. The consciousness in every being may be of a similar type, but it's not the same consciousness.
For example, I can say that every candle has a similar flame, but it's not the exact same flame that appears on every candle. Each flame is different.
Also useful is MN 38, in which the Buddha makes clear that it is not the SAME consciousness that wanders through one's life:

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to
him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to
him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you —
'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this
consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"
"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed
One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not
another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to
the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the
Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
harm & suffering."

The Buddha was very clear that there is no transcendental consciousness, that is aware of something beyond the six sense media.
From The All Sutta:

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
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.

The best part is that practitioners can realize this for themselves.
OP asked in the comments:

Mmm ok thanks for reply, However it doesn't explain how it happened
that You , mortal being, are part of this chaotic existence , neither
to say WHY You are here and what is this illusion that is around You.
If it was absolutely nothing then why You are living this very
existence? How You fall down to live with a body? It' all circulating
around the point, but it doesn't address the real cause, hence the
meaning.

In Buddhism, there is no illusion around You. The "You" is exactly the illusion. Please see the Bahiya Sutta for this.

“Therefore, Bāhiya, this is how you are to train yourself:
“In the seen, there will be just the seen.
In the heard, there will be just the heard.
In the sensed, there will be just the sensed.
In the cognized, there will be just the cognized.
This, Bāhiya, is how you are to train yourself.
Bāhiya, when it is like this for you –
In the seen, there is just the seen,
In the heard, there is just the heard,
In the sensed, there is just the sensed,
In the cognized, there is just the cognized –
Then, Bāhiya, there will be no ‘you’ in terms of this.
When there is no ‘you’ in terms of this,
Then there is no ‘you’ there;
When there is no ‘you’ there,
There is no ‘you’ here, or beyond, or in between.
Just this is the end of suffering.”
Bahiya Sutta

And the question of WHY is answered by the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. When a man is struck by a poisoned arrow, he will not have the time to ask why and where the arrow comes from. Rather he tries to find a way to remove it as soon as possible and treat himself.

Samsara used to seem pretty straightforward, simple, and obvious to me, Your answer has helped me see that there is much meaning to comprehend and contemplate in the teaching of samsara. Nice answer.

Mmm ok thanks for reply, However it doesn't explain how it happened that You , mortal being, are part of this chaotic existence , neither to say WHY You are here and what is this illusion that is around You. If it was absolutely nothing then why You are living this very existence? How You fall down to live with a body? It' all circulating around the point, but it doesn't address the real cause, hence the meaning.

this is a good answer, but there is some confusion. first you say that consciousness is not the same amongst individuals (flame analogy) which implies each individual has their OWN consciousness, and then you say "...not the SAME consciousness that wanders through one's life"...the two statements seem to contradict each other..

@DoubtfulMonk In Buddhism, there is no illusion around You. The "You" is exactly the illusion. Please see the Bahiya Sutta for this. And the question of WHY is answered by the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. When a man is struck by a poisoned arrow, he will not have the time to ask why and where the arrow comes from. Rather he tries to find a way to remove it as soon as possible and treat himself.

@blue_ego Even own consciousness is temporary and changes over time.

@ruben2020 so how can you say there is no single super-consciousness then?

@blue_ego Firstly, there is no self to own the single super consciousness. Secondly, it's temporary, arising and ceasing. Thirdly, it exists dependent on the six sense media.

@ruben2020 I didn't say own, I only asked, 'how do you know the consciousness that arises dependent on the six-sense organs is not an aspect of some single super-consciousness?' the reason i brought it up is b/c you gave the flame analogy..

@blue_ego Super consciousness is a very elegant concept but it's not consistent with experience. The flame analogy needs to be elaborated. Every flame is different from the other and even each flame flickers and changes over time.

@ruben2020 that's the concept of arising and ceasing. Negation doesn't explain the WHY it is just an aspect of "that".

But thanks to touch this because this was precisely the reason I posted this question. Negation is the problem, it doesn't address the point of the "illusion" and honestly is what is "disturbing" me.

To start I don't know what you think "super-consciousness" means; why you think that's "not unreal"; nor how you find it meaningful; and so I cannot answer that aspect of the question.
To me the essence of Buddhism is "suffering and cessation" -- the four noble truths, that suffering exists is various forms (including sickness and death); that suffering has a cause; that both (suffering and cause) cease; and that there's a Way which leads to that cessation.
I find that this is "meaningful" if you're suffering or vulnerable to suffering -- which I think includes "every sentient being", though perhaps there are periods when suffering is more acute/obvious, e.g. when a loved one dies.
The fact that Buddhism offers relief from (via insight into) suffering is what makes it uniquely meaningful or important -- i.e. it's not "samsara" that has meaning or is meaningful, rather it's the Buddha's message about the "ending of suffering" that's important.

As for samsara I think that, according to Buddhism, sentient beings are subject to delusion, suffering, and rebirth (samsara). The cause of suffering is related to desire, so liberation from suffering is related to liberation from desire, i.e. dispassion, and disenchantment (or literally disillusionment) -- nibbida.
As such I think that various things you might possibly find attractive -- for example "self-view", a lover's face, gold -- are analytically deconstructed and described as being "innumerable components or causes". That's an antidote so that you see that the thing you thought you loved isn't a single thing, isn't stable/permanent, and isn't something that is worth "being attached" to. This "analytic deconstruction" is my summary of the doctrine of "emptiness".
The same type of analysis deconstructs not only what we might unwisely find attractive (i.e. the cause of suffering) but also what we're averse to i.e. suffering itself.
Perhaps you're right that samsara is not described as being especially "meaningful" -- it's just the round of rebirth. That's the point i.e. to not find that attractive. Instead of chasing one unstable/composite thing after another, a Buddhist might prefer the relative stability of a "well-guarded mind", and the "refuge" offered by the Buddha's doctrine.
There's an ethical component too that I think is very important (but which you didn't mention in the question). Do good and don't do bad. That (morality) is conventionally agreeable or common-sense. We're also taught that it's a source of joy (skilful ethics -> no remorse -> joy).
Lastly though I can't say I understand the quote "But those who surrender unto Me cross over it easily" nor the sentiment behind it, perhaps there's something analogous (not identical) to that in Buddhism -- "taking refuge" in the three jewels (buddha, dhamma, and sangha).

Indeed looks like the description of a Buddhist is very very similar to the one of a Vedanta! The path for liberation is anyway to exit Samsara BUT from the Buddhist perspective , Samsara has no meaning, for the Hindu perspective it is part of Vishnu's Maya. If you connect the two points,one  referred above in the  Gita , to the one described by yourself, the meaning is the same, the source is different. I cannot accept that Samsara can be something random where it just happen to you to "fall down within". Hope this makes sense.

This should be more of a comment, but I don't have the 50 reputation to post one. So I post this as an answer. Be gentle o buddhists .
Samsara is, at the end of the day, an effect of karma (moral causation): Good invites good and evil invites evil, that's the basic formula, but how it manifests, how it becomes real, is as worlds/realms (hell, heaven, etc.) and circumstances in these realms/worlds (beneficial, harmful) and these then conspire to induce states of mind & body (happy, sad, ok, etc.).
When one attains nirvana, one is liberated from samsara,  from the web of karmic causation.
Me two sikkas.

"Saṁsāra literally means “wandering-on.” Many people think of it as the Buddhist name for the place where we currently live — the place we leave when we go to nibbāna. But in the early Buddhist texts, it’s the answer, not to the question , “Where are we?” but to the question, “What are we doing?” Instead of a place, it’s a process: the tendency to keep creating worlds and then moving into them. As one world falls apart, you create another one and go there. At the same time, you bump into other people who are creating their own worlds, too."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Saṁsāra" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/KarmaOfQuestions/Section0008.html

"Samsara is not a place that you leave, it's an addiction that you recover from." 11:20 https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/y2022/221215_In_a_World_of_Suffering.mp3

Perhaps the most eloquent description of samsara I have ever read is one that was written by Ajaan Mahā Boowa from the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition. It is written with such precision, such clarity and such wisdom that one cannot escape the sheer profundity of how it gives conventional meaning to samsara. Adding to that, the focus is entirely on the mind, the six-sense organs and what they perceive, and how, in the ensuing confusion between sense organs and the world, the mind ties itself in a calamitous bundle of knots from which a beginning point is no longer discernable...

The citta, the mind’s essential knowing nature, has been dominated by
fundamental ignorance (avijjã) since time immemorial. This fundamental
ignorance has created within the citta a center or focal point of the
knower. The existence of that false center engenders an individual
perspective which is the nucleus of self-identity. This “self” forms
perceptions of duality (the knower and the known) and from there
awareness flows out to produce the world of the 5 khandhas and of all
sensory experience, which in turn reinforce the knower’s sense of
individuality. It all begins with the currents of the citta, which
flow out to create the entire sensory world, the world of conditioned
phenomena.
Because of this, it is said that all physical and mental phenomena are
relative, conventional realities (sammuti). They exist only relative
to the knower, the one who perceives them. As such they are merely
conventions that the citta has brought into being and given a
subjective identity to in order to experience its own manifestations.
In turn, these manifestations become incorporated into the citta’s
sense of its own identity. Thus the known becomes indistinguishable
from the knower, and duality comes full circle, trapping the citta in
a web of self-delusion. The citta is reduced to depending on its
manifestations to assess the nature of its own existence.
When fundamental ignorance has been destroyed, the focal point of the
knower disintegrates, which causes the “self” perspective to disappear
from the citta altogether. With the disappearance of self-identity,
all manifestations of the citta, all relative, conventional realities,
are divested of their power to deceive and no longer appear within the
citta. Although they do continue to play a role, in the form of the 5
khandhas, as long as the Arahant remains alive, they are no longer
incorporated into the citta’s identity and have no part in
conditioning its outlook. This is called vimutti – absolute freedom
from all conditions. No conditions whatsoever exist for this freedom.

What you describe as enumerable causes and effects are but one of many Buddhist teachings that aim to address the fundaments of the mind's myriad of quandaries caused by the way in which it misperceives sensory information. In the Zen tradition, the wild fox koan, for instance, encourages one to understand cause and effect as a means to understand how the mind has tied itself up. The Theravada tradition typically uses Pratītyasamutpāda to understand cause and effect.
Initially, meaning is important because one first needs to understand the context, that the mind is lost in its own turmoil such that it cannot see outside its own maddening vortex. In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, this context was first laid bare before the Buddha embarked upon a solution:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one
who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual
pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common,
ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction:
painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the
middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing
knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to
Unbinding.

I cannot perceive a reality that I should refuse for the nature of
emptiness while I am living in this very reality, without at least a
meaning of what it is.
Later in the search, this is perhaps thee most difficult conundrum for the seeker; that the very notion of language, words and the vocabulary do not refer to anything substantial whatsoever. At a bare minimum, words provide a function in the world, and that is it! It had taken me over a year to let go of my own words, and now all that is seen is a hole that opens and closes from time-to-time. The perimeter of that hole flaps around sometimes, and in doing so it articulates various sounds. There are these figures in this place called the outside world who claim to have the ability to cognize these sounds. In cognizing these sounds, the words linger in their minds and span outwards into their spectrum of time, whereupon they contemplate conceptual ideas about being enlightened at some point in the future - but the Japanese Zen Master, Hakuin, points out with succinct beauty:

“People see it as if it is far away. What a pity! They are like a man
who, standing in water, complains of thirst”

Meaning itself serves various functions in the world, but because of the ever-changing nature of phenomena, meaning will always lose its longevity. There's a fine line between where this points and nihilistic tendencies. In the irony of nihilism, the mind tries to create meaning from non-meaning. It's another mental object. Basically, you can choose any meaning you like, but you'll soon tire of it and look for another one, then another and another. If there is a purpose, it is in how everything appears for you in this instant.

Ajaan Mahā Boowa's quote is quite amazing, thank you.

Yes all good, but doesn't explain why you are here and you have a body

@Doubtful Monk - thank you. I've included a respone in the last paragraph. Hope that's helpful.


text:
What's the difference between having a view and clinging to a view?
The Buddha said that clinging is stress. Also, that there are four kinds of clinging: "Monks, there are these four clingings. Which four? Sensuality clinging, view clinging, habit-&-practice clinging, and doctrine-of-self clinging." But basically, they are all view clinging.
A useful view in one context can be a harmful one in another.
How can one "know" the difference? How can one "know" that one is not just clinging to a preference? What's the difference between having a view and clinging to a view?
P.S. Some very interesting answers, but no references yet. I was hoping for some insight from the Buddha, or possibly a contemporary Dhamma master.

can you add your definition of clinging to the question?  subtle variety can create confusion...

@blue_ego Clinging is a metaphor for the mental activity which it refers to. It can't be more defined than that. "The five clinging aggregates." Isn't it pretty straightforward? I mean, words only go so far, but they go somewhere, they have attha. Maybe I misunderstand your comment.

i'm just not sure why you consider the 4 types all as view (understanding) clinging...

also clinging can sometimes mean sustenance

@blue_ego I thought that I should say something about clinging and view clinging before I asked my question(s), that's what the opening paragraph was for. Maybe I should have left out the part that threw you off.

@blue_ego Sensuality is a view (passion for the experience you could have, and the resolve for it). View clinging is any view. Habit-&-practice clinging is the view of how I get what I want. Doctrine-of-self clinging is the view of who is doing the thinking, wanting, planning...

So which view does good householder like on it? Good to take on just the safe bet on that.

A, sensu amplissimo, view is orthodoxa (right view) by virtue of the quality of its arguments, and not by how many adherents it has.

@blue_ego Expectations are an interesting thing, thanks for your thoughts.

@blue_ego My understanding: The 3 asava (sensuality, becoming, ignorance) help us understand ignorance as a thing, by showing us what it does / how it acts, in various contexts. In the same way, the four types of clinging help us understand clinging as a thing, by showing clinging in its various contexts and activities.

"Just because a thought comes into your head doesn’t mean that you should continue to think it. Look at it: One, is it true? Two, is it beneficial? Does it really help to think about this? And three, is right now the right time and place to do that, whether it’s pleasing or unpleasing?

This helps explain the seeming contradiction you see in a lot of the Buddha’s teachings: on the one hand, talking about right views, and then on the other hand talking about not clinging to views. Not clinging means looking at your views in precisely this way: Are they true? Are they beneficial? Is right now the right time and place to think those things?

Clinging means you hold on to a particular view no matter what. It may seem true — and in fact, a lot of the forest ajaans always say that true views are the really dangerous ones. When you’re right, you can get yourself in a real mess. There’s pride that comes with having the right idea, and then you start using it in the wrong ways at the wrong time. That’s what they mean when they talk about clinging to views.

Not clinging to views doesn’t mean that you’re wishy-washy or that you don’t care about what’s true or false. You’re very clear about what’s true or false. You try to be very clear about what’s beneficial or not. But also have a sense of when’s the right time to think about certain things."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Right Inner Speech" https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/Transcripts/040101RightInnerSpeech.pdf

Every time you have a view thinking "this is the only truth and nothing else" - you are clinging to it.
If you have a view thinking "this is just a working theory, and here's where it simplifies, generalizes, and ignores inconvenient facts, and/or lacks complete information" - in other words if you clearly understand the view's limits - that's when you are not clinging to it.
When you have a discussion with someone and you are trying to prove your point - that's when you are clinging. The Buddha called this swordfighting, not dialog.
If you are sincerely trying to understand the other person's perspective and enrich your understanding with elements of their view, regardless of whether it proves your rightness or shows that you are wrong - that's when you are not clinging. When both do it, it becomes an actual dialog.
When someone's view oversimplifies, overgeneralizes, ignores inconvenient facts, or is just badly informed and you outright dismiss it as obviously wrong - that's when you are clinging.
If you clearly understand: "here are the objective factual reasons why from this person's perspective emerges such a view, and here are the reasons why they keep clinging to it" - that's when you are not clinging.
When you conflate model with reality - that's when you are clinging. If you remember that model is but a description of reality, one of the many possible narratives conceptualizing the infinitely complex - that's when you are not clinging.

Plenty to think about there, thanks Andriy.

We know we're clinging to a view — or clinging to anything for that matter — when trying to separate ourselves from that view produces a rising anxiety, outrage, or other reactive emotion. Let's say I have a view about the shape of the earth: that it's spherical, or flat, or donut-like, or shaped like a mollusk... Now someone comes and tells me my view is wrong, and that the earth has a quite different shape. Do I experience fear or anger at being challenged? Do I get mouthy or argumentative? Do I stomp off and ruminate it about it obsessively? If so, I have an attachment: I'm clinging to the view.
This doesn't conflict with the idea that there is 'right view'. I do hold that the earth is spherical, for instance, since that seems to be scientifically sound. But if I run across someone who holds a different view I don't feel any urge to 'fix' their view beyond simple curiosity and discussion.  They'll come around in their own time, or if they have a good argument they might ultimately convince me otherwise. Scientific consensuses can and do change.
My own personal view is that one should approach things in the world like a theater production, with an appropriate suspension of disbelief. Know that what you're experiencing isn't exactly 'real' but accept it exactly as it presents itself, otherwise you'll get nothing out of it. Most other people are lost in the performance, clinging to the views scripted for them by the world. But that's not something we need to fight against; it's an aesthetic, with its own intrinsic artistry and logic: tragic, dramatic, comic, etc. We can't pull the character out of the play, because the character only exists in the play. We have to reach past the character to find the actor.

Thanks Ted. Maybe I'm a bit of a performer also, reading from a script of old karma.

Liked “suspension of disbelief”...

Suppose there were a farmer who lived in a farmer's house with a beautiful and smart wife. One morning he woke and went to stand by the bedroom window, which overlooked his back garden. Beyond his back garden a vast vale stretched as far as the eye can see, complete with meadows, rabbits and rolling hills. The thought occured to him, 'I'd like to blend my garden into the vale. In that way, I might enjoy the vastness and peace emanating from the vale'. He stared at the vale longingly; he imagined how this might look; he took to living in the idea in his mind, and in doing so became lost in a make-believe sensual psudo-reality.
When his wife woke, she noticed him in a trance-like state by the window, and asked what he was doing. He explained, to which she simply replied 'knock the fence down then, my dear'. In that moment his psudo-reality burst. After much sawing and hammering, in no long time, he got to enjoy the fruits of having no border between himself and the vale.
This is what it is like holding onto to views; you cannot see the bigger picture, you cannot see the obstacles and thus any plausible solution to moving forwards. One is stuck in their own psudo-reality churning around in the same mundane milk. After much churning, the milk turns to butter. In the same way, the thoughts that orbit those views coagulate until it becomes a calcified belief. In its state of solidity, it is carried around as if they are truths and entertained with such regularity that one no longer questions it. Whilst wading through this glutinous mess, you spread those views like butter upon your fellow neighbours. They have their own butter, which doesn't mix well with your butter, and conflict ensues. Unfortunately, nobody has any jam to sweeten the dialogue, so the transaction is reduced to neanderthal-like blows: blocks of butter bounce of heads and cause black eyes, ear ache and messy hair styles.
What do you know... holding to views is indeed stressful. The farmer's sensuality view paralysed him such that he couldn't see clearly. He was clinging to his own internal ideas. His wife brought him back to the conventional 'factual' world, the world of the sense organs. She was the smart one of the two, but then she was a lover of jam...
...sweet is this liberation.

Thanks Max, great story!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Where does morality come from in Buddhism?
I have a hypothetical question.
Let's say I don't believe in karma, reincarnation, or any deities of any sort. I also saw in some texts and videos that, to achieve higher awareness, I should not define good or bad either. That I should be equanimous towards everything. If there is no distinction between good and evil, where does morality come from then, in the absence of karma? How do I justify my inclination toward doing good to humanity?
Is my question nonsensical? Please help me resolve this conflict.

Since karma is a core principle in Buddhism, I don't think it makes sense to expect a Buddhist explanation of morality while also, a priori, rejecting the existence of karma.

The basis of morality (secular or religious) is the observation that causes have consequences: actions have reactions and abreactions; nothing is isolated or immune. When we talk about karma, dao, the Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, the interplay of sin and virtue, or whatever, all we're really pointing at is a kind of expanded, psychotropic version of Newton's laws, one that includes psychosocial (and if you like, spiritual) principles. Loosely put, we have something like:

The mind will continue to do what the mind has always done, unless some effort is applied
The impact of the mind on the world is proportional to the intensity of its desires
Every mental action has an equal and opposite set of reactions, in ourselves and in others

In other words, if we punch someone in the face, we don't stop at calculating the force of the blow and the resultant damage to flesh and bone. The intent to strike is an inertial state of the mind that carries through into the punch, and that creates a set of reactions in the mind of the other that produces a response (given the complex inertial state of their own mind). Note that people often have a hard time explaining why they threw a punch. They'll have some immediate trigger, sure, but they generally have no clear idea why they were primed to throw a punch in the first place. That 'priming' — the inertial state of their mind — could be the result of their upbringing (which could be a result of their parent's upbringing, and their grandparents...), or it might come from encounters with their peers early on, or from some unpleasant interaction with a stranger sometime, or even something more esoteric than that. All we can honestly say is that the inertial state of one mind ran up against the inertial state of another mind, and there was a transfer of mental inertia (an applied force) through the mediation of a punch.
Immoral behavior is always predicated on the belief that there will be no significant consequences to the self for a given action. It's a carefully gilded lie.
Buddhist practice aims to do two things:

Defuse that mental inertia so that we can act freely in the world
Uproot the notion that a self immune to consequences exists

When we still the onrushing inertia of the mind and grasp our fundamental integration with the world, our behavior becomes naturally moral. It's like someone going to the doctor saying: "I'm having a hard time walking; I keep slipping and sliding and falling over," only to have the doctor say: "Hm. Have you tried taking off those roller skates?" Buddhist teachings are just like that doctor's advice, but we're the ones who have to see how our own minds carry us away.

Your question is perfectly valid. In my understanding, the morality in Buddhism comes from a fundamental natural law of information/representation. Let me try and summarize it here.
Sentient beings experience reality through representation, what we can call the content of their minds.
Representation is a kind of simplified reflection of reality or an informational echo of reality.
Representation is especially not good at handling contradictions. Contradictions are hard and sentient beings find them uncomfortable or even painful.
Certain types of behaviors objectively lead to contradictions. For example, lying, provoking conflict, violence, taking someone else's possessions - are some basic examples of behavior that most often lead to contradictions one or more sentient beings have to experience.
There are nuances, but in general actions that lead to conflicts and contradictions - and therfore to uncomfortable and painful experience - are "evil" and actions that lead away from conflicts and contradictions and towards peace and harmony are "good".
Not all such actions create results right away. Some actions setup latent circumstances that tend to cause trouble later on. This is what we colloquially call karma, the latent unripened results of previous actions. Again, nothing supernatural.
Now you can understand the following quote from the Dhammapada:

To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Because the "evil" (by definition) leads to contradictions and suffering, the "good" (by definition) leads to peace and harmony, and the "mind" is the source of all representation.

Within the Buddha's teaching it can seem like everything is a contradiction. This is because there are two ways to approach reality in Buddhism. Ultimate reality and conceptual reality.
In the Buddha's teaching something is either going to lead to suffering or not lead to suffering. That comes from the ultimate reality Buddha teaching.
In this ultimate reality way of seeing there are no good or evil people, just good and bad mind states AKA Samsara.
Doing good to humanity? Doing good for yourself? There is no difference in this ultimate reality way of seeing things.
One doesn't have to be equanimous towards everything. One practices the eightfold path. Equanimity just happens from doing skillful Buddhist practice.  It's not personal.
So, see, we individuals have to do a balancing act of sorts between helping ourselves & helping others because every moment is different. Rather than just having blind faith in our personal preconceived notions, the government, a church or even the Buddha's words.

Is this quoting something else?

No, I would note the author of the quote, but these are common approaches to the Buddha's teaching.

Ajaan Geoff touches on morality in this segment from his book The Wings to Awakening. He's writing about the night of the Buddha's awakening and the insights that the Buddha experienced that night. You might have to read a little of the context for this paragraph (see link) in order to get a better sense for the authenticity of his claim about morality here.
"The second insight—into the death and rebirth of beings throughout the cosmos—provided part of the answer to the questions surrounding the issue of causality in the pursuit of happiness. The primary causal factor is the mind, and in particular the moral quality of the intentions comprising its thoughts, words, and deeds, and the rightness of the views underlying them. Thus moral principles are inherent in the functioning of the cosmos, rather than being mere social conventions. For this reason, any quest for happiness must focus on mastering the quality of the mind’s views and intentions."

Where does morality come from in Buddhism? Is morality objective?

"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
and freedom from remorse as their reward."
Kimattha Sutta

You can read the whole sutta to see how skillful virtues lead to enlightenment. It starts from freedom from remorse, which leads to joy and so on.
So, if skillful virtues result in freedom from remorse, then immoral behavior lead to remorse. So, this means that virtue is universal or objective in Buddhism.
Well, some things are not universal or objective. For example, should you try to beat the lights when the traffic light is red? These are not universal or objective. These are learned.
But some things like taking a life, taking what belongs to others, speaking untruth and adultery are definitely universal or objective.
Where is this source of objective morality?

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that
occasion King Pasenadi Kosala had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper
palace. Then he said to her, "Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you
than yourself?"
"No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what
about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"
"No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself."
Then the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One
and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone
with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is
there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one
dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there
anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one
dearer to me than myself.'"
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
occasion exclaimed:

Searching all directions
with your awareness,
you find no one dearer
than yourself.
In the same way, others
are thickly dear to themselves.
So you shouldn't hurt others
if you love yourself.

Udana 5.1

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
hereafter.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
hereafter.
Dhammapada 10

What does this show?
Morality is objective, because we know that nobody is dearer to us than ourselves (if we still have self view and conceit), and we recognize that this is also the case for other unenlightened sentient beings.
So, you would feel remorse when hurting others, because you know that if others did that to you, you would feel pain. The basis of morality is compassion towards the suffering of others, because we can relate to it due to our own suffering.
How do I know this to be true?
Simply list out every possible way you can hurt another person, and most likely, you would have derived the basic code of morality found in most religions by negating every item in your list.

I find this answer quite acceptable. However, there is this inherent axiom that one must love oneself, and then we can develop theorems and corollaries towards morality and virtues. Could you please elaborate on why we should love ourselves? What if someone does not?

Maybe not necessarily related to the question, but I think for a westerner studying religion a very important issue is how you treat knowledge. You should be not only trying to understand some concepts, but also consider what kind of context and background people originally talking about these concepts have or used to have. How the understanding and usage of language might differ between Eastern/Western people and so on. You might be using the same words but they might not mean the same thing for different people.
The western philosophical tradition in general is a process of deepening in metaphisics, the process of questioning every conclusion you come to, not creating new concepts, but "destroying" and getting rid of the existing ones you have obtained during the life so far. So, "studying Buddhism" might be quite a different process for Eastern people for example. You should be asking a question if you can even study Buddhism doing the same thing that other people do as well (a.k.a. should you listen to what Buddha was saying or should you be doing what Buddha was doing himself? or maybe you should not even do anything, after all Buddha was not looking for help from other people but was just thinking by himself:)).
Regarding your question, it might be worth considering why you have an urge to ask such questions. Why you need morality and why you have a need to do "good to humanity". For example, if this comes from the fact you have been growing in a western society built on Christianity, you might not even have to answer such questions because they won't make sense anymore for you after some thinking and understanding where these questions come from.

Point 1- You dont believe in these some concepts, but you believe in certain texts that believe in those concepts. Bound to run into a paradox.
Point 2- What you might have read in some texts can be contextual and that too of a small scope. WHat Great masters have written in a majority of texts is very much about karma, etc. and good or bad only.
Point 3- Being Equanimous is not the same thing as there being no distinction between good or bad. Equanimity ("upekha") is your subjective action. Good or bad is explicitly defined in the texts. It is based on the function of things and their consequences (karma). Equanimity isnt saying or asserting that there is no good or bad.
Morality comes in to play only because there are good acts and there are bad acts. There is good and bad and learning to identify what is what, not merely at the level of how it appears, is an active part of Buddhist learning. Morality comes into play only because there is karma and other related concepts. ALl these together justify the reasoning of morality and act as a source of true conviction to be good. If you remove them, then the question of asking how does one justify morality is like having a car, taking away its wheels and engines and then asking "hey! how do I justify these to be a car".

A Safe Bet Sutta : https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN60.html
>"The sutta falls into two parts, the first part covering his “safe-bet” arguments, and the second part extolling the person who practices the Dhamma for tormenting neither himself nor others. The two parts are connected in that they both present pragmatic arguments for accepting the Buddha’s teaching."

I have heard that on one occasion, when the Blessed One was on a
wandering tour among the Kosalans with a large Saṅgha of monks, he
arrived at the brahman village of the Kosalans called Sāla.
The brahman householders heard, “Master Gotama the contemplative—the
son of the Sakyans, having gone forth from the Sakyan clan—on a
wandering tour among the Kosalans with a large Saṅgha of monks—has
arrived at Sāla. And of that master Gotama this fine reputation has
spread: ‘He is indeed a Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened,
consummate in clear-knowing & conduct, well-gone, an expert with
regard to the cosmos, unexcelled trainer of people fit to be tamed,
teacher of devas & human beings, awakened, blessed. He makes
known—having realized it through direct knowledge—this world with its
devas, Māras, & Brahmās, this generation with its contemplatives &
brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk; he explains the Dhamma admirable
in the beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end; he
expounds the holy life both in its particulars & in its essence,
entirely perfect, surpassingly pure. It is good to see such a worthy
one.’”
So the brahman householders of Sāla went to the Blessed One. On
arrival, some of them bowed down to the Blessed One and sat to one
side. Some of them exchanged courteous greetings with him and, after
an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, sat to one side. Some
of them sat to one side having saluted him with their hands
palm-to-palm over their hearts. Some of them sat to one side having
announced their name & clan. Some of them sat to one side in silence.
As they were sitting there, the Blessed One asked them, “Householders,
is there any teacher agreeable to you, in whom you have found grounded
conviction?”
“No, lord, there is no teacher agreeable to us, in whom we have found
grounded conviction.”
“As you have not found an agreeable teacher, you should adopt and
practice this safe-bet teaching, for this safe-bet teaching—when
accepted and adopted—will be to your long-term welfare & happiness.
“And what is the safe-bet teaching? Existence & Non-existence
A. “There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine,
hold this view: ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing
sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There
is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no
spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring
rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after
having directly known and realized it for themselves.’1
B. “Some contemplatives & brahmans, speaking in direct opposition to
those contemplatives & brahmans, say this: ‘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.’
“What do you think, householders? Don’t these contemplatives &
brahmans speak in direct opposition to each other?”
“Yes, lord.”
A1. “Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold
this doctrine, hold this view—’There is nothing given, nothing
offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or
bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no
father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans
who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and
the next after having directly known and realized it for
themselves’—it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful
activities—good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental
conduct—they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities:
bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is
that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in
unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the
defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation,
resembling cleansing.
A2. “Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who
thinks, ‘There is no next world’ is his wrong view. Because there
actually is the next world, when he is resolved that ‘There is no next
world,’ that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next
world, when he speaks the statement, ‘There is no next world,’ that is
his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he
says that ‘There is no next world,’ he makes himself an opponent to
those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the
next world, when he persuades another that ‘There is no next world,’
that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion
in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others.
Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad
habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong
speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true
Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many
evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong
view.
A3. “With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: ‘If
there is no next world, then—with the breakup of the body, after
death—this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the
next world, then this venerable person—on the breakup of the body,
after death—will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad
destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn’t speak of the next
world, and there weren’t the true statement of those venerable
contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still criticized
in the here & now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong
view2: one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence.’ If there really
is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw
twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here & now, and in
that—with the breakup of the body, after death—he will reappear in a
plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus
this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him,
covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the
skillful.
B1. “Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold
this doctrine, hold this view—’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’—it can be expected that, shunning these three
unskillful activities—bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad
mental conduct—they will adopt & practice these three skillful
activities: good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental
conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives &
brahmans see in unskillful activities the drawbacks, the degradation,
and the defilement; and in skillful activities the rewards of
renunciation, resembling cleansing.
B2. “Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who
thinks, ‘There is a next world’ is his right view. Because there
actually is the next world, when he is resolved that ‘There is a next
world,’ that is his right resolve. Because there actually is the next
world, when he speaks the statement, ‘There is a next world,’ that is
his right speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he
says that ‘There is a next world,’ he doesn’t make himself an opponent
to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is
the next world, when he persuades another that ‘There is a next
world,’ that is persuasion in what is true Dhamma. And in that
persuasion in what is true Dhamma, he doesn’t exalt himself or
disparage others. Whatever bad habituation he previously had is
abandoned, while good habituation is manifested. And this right view,
right resolve, right speech, non-opposition to the arahants,
persuasion in what is true Dhamma, non-exaltation of self, &
non-disparagement of others: These many skillful activities come into
play, in dependence on right view.
B3. “With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: ‘If
there is the next world, then this venerable person—on the breakup of
the body, after death—will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly
world. Even if we didn’t speak of the next world, and there weren’t
the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this
venerable person is still praised in the here & now by the observant
as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine
of existence.’ If there really is a next world, then this venerable
person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the
observant here & now; and in that—with the breakup of the body, after
death—he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus
this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers
both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.
Action & Non-action
A. “There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine,
hold this view: ‘In acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or
getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture,
in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in
tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting
others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given,
breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary,
ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood—one does
no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living
beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of
flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even
if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and
getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate,
torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from
that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left
bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making
sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no
merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity,
self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from
that cause, no coming of merit.’3
B. “Some contemplatives & brahmans, speaking in direct opposition to
those contemplatives & brahmans, say this: ‘In acting or getting
others to act, in mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in
torturing or getting others to torture, in inflicting sorrow or in
getting others to inflict sorrow, in tormenting or getting others to
torment, in intimidating or getting others to intimidate, in taking
life, taking what is not given, breaking into houses, plundering
wealth, committing burglary, ambushing highways, committing adultery,
speaking falsehood—one does evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were
to turn all the living beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh,
a single pile of flesh, there would be evil from that cause, there
would be a coming of evil. If one were to go along the right bank of
the Ganges, killing and getting others to kill, mutilating and getting
others to mutilate, torturing and getting others to torture, there
would be evil from that cause, there would be a coming of evil. If one
were to go along the left bank of the Ganges, giving and getting
others to give, making sacrifices and getting others to make
sacrifices, there would be merit from that cause, there would be a
coming of merit. Through generosity, self-control, restraint, and
truthful speech there is merit from that cause, there is a coming of
merit.’
“What do you think, householders? Don’t these contemplatives &
brahmans speak in direct opposition to each other?”
“Yes, lord.”
A1. “Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold
this doctrine, hold this view—’In acting or getting others to act, in
mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting
others to torture… one does no evil … Through generosity,
self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from
that cause, no coming of merit’—it can be expected that, shunning
these three skillful activities—good bodily conduct, good verbal
conduct, good mental conduct—they will adopt & practice these three
unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad
mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives &
brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the
degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the
rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.
A2. “Because there actually is action, the view of one who thinks,
‘There is no action’ is his wrong view. Because there actually is
action, when he is resolved that ‘There is no action,’ that is his
wrong resolve. Because there actually is action, when he speaks the
statement, ‘There is no action,’ that is his wrong speech. Because
there actually is action, when he says that ‘There is no action,’ he
makes himself an opponent to those arahants who teach action. Because
there actually is action, when he persuades another that ‘There is no
action,’ that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that
persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and
disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is
abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view,
wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in
what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of
others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in
dependence on wrong view.
A3. “With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: ‘If
there is no action, then—with the breakup of the body, after
death—this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is
action, then this venerable person—on the breakup of the body, after
death—will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a
lower realm, hell. Even if we didn’t speak of action, and there
weren’t the true statement of those venerable contemplatives &
brahmans, this venerable person is still criticized in the here & now
by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds
to a doctrine of non-action.’ If there really is action, then this
venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized
by the observant here & now; and in that—with the breakup of the body,
after death—he will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad
destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when
poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him, covers (only) one side, and
leaves behind the possibility of the skillful.
B1. “Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold
this doctrine, hold this view—’In acting or getting others to act, in
mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting
others to torture… one does evil.… Through generosity, self-control,
restraint, and truthful speech there is merit from that cause, there
is a coming of merit’—it can be expected that, shunning these three
unskillful activities—bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad
mental conduct—they will adopt & practice these three skillful
activities: good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental
conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives &
brahmans see in unskillful activities the drawbacks, the degradation,
and the defilement; and in skillful activities the rewards of
renunciation, resembling cleansing.
B2. “Because there actually is action, the view of one who thinks,
‘There is action’ is his right view. Because there actually is action,
when he is resolved that ‘There is action,’ that is his right resolve.
Because there actually is action, when he speaks the statement, ‘There
is action,’ that is his right speech. Because there actually is
action, when he says that ‘There is action,’ he doesn’t make himself
an opponent to those arahants who teach action. Because there actually
is action, when he persuades another that ‘There is action,’ that is
persuasion in what is true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is
true Dhamma, he doesn’t exalt himself or disparage others. Whatever
bad habituation he previously had is abandoned, while good habituation
is manifested. And this right view, right resolve, right speech,
non-opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is true Dhamma,
non-exaltation of self, & non-disparagement of others: These many
skillful activities come into play, in dependence on right view.
B3. “With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: ‘If
there is action, then this venerable person—on the breakup of the
body, after death—will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly
world. Even if we didn’t speak of action, and there weren’t the true
statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable
person is still praised in the here & now by the observant as a person
of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of action.’
If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a
good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here & now;
and in that—with the breakup of the body, after death—he will reappear
in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching,
when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves
behind the possibility of the unskillful. Causality & Non-causality
A. “There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine,
hold this view: ‘There is no causality, no requisite condition, for
the defilement of beings. Beings are defiled without causality,
without requisite condition. There is no causality, no requisite
condition, for the purification of beings. Beings are purified without
causality, without requisite condition. There is no strength, no
effort, no human energy, no human endeavor. All living beings, all
life, all beings, all souls are powerless, devoid of strength, devoid
of effort. Subject to the changes of fate, serendipity, and nature,
they experience pleasure and pain in the six great classes of birth.’4
B. “Some contemplatives & brahmans, speaking in direct opposition to
those contemplatives & brahmans, say this: ‘There is causality, there
is requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. Beings are
defiled with causality, with requisite condition. There is causality,
there is requisite condition, for the purification of beings. Beings
are purified with causality, with requisite condition. There is
strength, there is effort, there is human energy, there is human
endeavor. It’s not the case that all living beings, all life, all
beings, all souls are powerless, devoid of strength, devoid of effort;
or that subject to the changes of fate, serendipity, and nature, they
experience pleasure and pain in the six great classes of birth.’
“What do you think, householders? Don’t these contemplatives &
brahmans speak in direct opposition to each other?”
“Yes, lord.”
A1. “Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold
this doctrine, hold this view—’There is no cause, no requisite
condition, for the defilement of beings.… Subject to the changes of
fate, serendipity, and nature, they experience pleasure and pain in
the six great classes of birth’—it can be expected that, shunning
these three skillful activities—good bodily conduct, good verbal
conduct, good mental conduct—they will adopt & practice these three
unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad
mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives &
brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the
degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the
rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.
A2. “Because there actually is causality, the view of one who thinks,
‘There is no causality’ is his wrong view. Because there actually is
causality, when he is resolved that ‘There is no causality,’ that is
his wrong resolve. Because there actually is causality, when he speaks
the statement, ‘There is no causality,’ that is his wrong speech.
Because there actually is causality, when he says that ‘There is no
causality,’ he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who teach
causality. Because there actually is causality, when he persuades
another that ‘There is no causality,’ that is persuasion in what is
not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he
exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he
previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And
this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the
arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, &
disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come
into play, in dependence on wrong view.
A3. “With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: ‘If
there is no causality, then—with the breakup of the body, after
death—this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is
causality, then this venerable person—on the breakup of the body,
after death—will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad
destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn’t speak of
causality, and there weren’t the true statement of those venerable
contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still criticized
in the here & now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong
view: one who holds to a doctrine of non-causality.’ If there really
is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw
twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here & now, and in
that—with the breakup of the body, after death—he will reappear in a
plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus
this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him,
covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the
skillful.
B1. “Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold
this doctrine, hold this view—’There is causality, there is requisite
condition, for the defilement of beings.… It’s not the case that all
living beings, all life, all beings, all souls are powerless, devoid
of strength, devoid of effort; or that subject to the changes of fate,
serendipity, and nature, they experience pleasure and pain in the six
great classes of birth’—it can be expected that, shunning these three
unskillful activities—bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad
mental conduct—they will adopt & practice these three skillful
activities: good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental
conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives &
brahmans see in unskillful activities the drawbacks, the degradation,
and the defilement; and in skillful activities the rewards of
renunciation, resembling cleansing.
B2. “Because there actually is causality, the view of one who thinks,
‘There is causality’ is his right view. Because there actually is
causality, when he is resolved that ‘There is causality,’ that is his
right resolve. Because there actually causality, when he speaks the
statement, ‘There is causality,’ that is his right speech. Because
there actually is causality, when he says that ‘There is causality,’
he doesn’t make himself an opponent to those arahants who teach
causality. Because there actually is causality, when he persuades
another that ‘There is causality,’ that is persuasion in what is true
Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is true Dhamma, he doesn’t
exalt himself or disparage others. Whatever bad habituation he
previously had is abandoned, while good habituation is manifested. And
this right view, right resolve, right speech, non-opposition to the
arahants, persuasion in what is true Dhamma, non-exaltation of self, &
non-disparagement of others: These many skillful activities come into
play, in dependence on right view.
B3. “With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: ‘If
there is causality, then this venerable person—on the breakup of the
body, after death—will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly
world. Even if we didn’t speak of causality, and there weren’t the
true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this
venerable person is still praised in the here & now by the observant
as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine
of causality.’ If there really is causality, then this venerable
person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the
observant here & now; and in that—with the breakup of the body, after
death—he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus
this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers
both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.

the Buddha, A Safe Bet Apaṇṇaka Sutta  (MN 60) | Translate from Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN60.html

Morality in Buddhism comes from at least two sources:

moral empathy; the human conscience having empathy

moral sensitivity; the human conscience developed in mental/neurological sensitivity.

Moral empathy is described in SN 55.7 as follows, for example:

A noble disciple reflects: ‘I want to live and don’t want to die; I
want to be happy and recoil from pain. Since this is so, if someone
were to take my life, I wouldn’t like that. But others also want to
live and don’t want to die; they want to be happy and recoil from
pain. So if I were to take the life of someone else, they wouldn’t
like that either. The thing that is disliked by me is also disliked by
others. Since I dislike this thing, how can I inflict it on someone
else?’ Reflecting in this way, they give up killing living creatures
themselves. And they encourage others to give up killing living
creatures, praising the giving up of killing living creatures.

Moral sensitivity is described as follows in AN 3.55:

One excited by lust, overcome by lust, with mind obsessed by it,
intending for his own affliction, for the affliction of others or for
the affliction of both, experiences mental suffering and dejection.
One full of hate, overcome by hatred …
One who is deluded, overcome by delusion, with mind obsessed by it,
intending for his own affliction, for the affliction of others or for
the affliction of both, experiences mental suffering and
dejection.
But when lust, hate, delusion are abandoned, he does not intend for
his own affliction, for the affliction of others, or for the
affliction of both, and he does not experience mental suffering and
dejection. It is in this way, nibbāna is directly visible.

“There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones reflects thus: ‘I love life & don’t love death. I love happiness & abhor pain. Now if I—loving life & not loving death, loving happiness & abhorring pain—were to be killed, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to kill another who loves life & doesn’t love death, who loves happiness & abhors pain, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from taking life, he gets others to refrain from taking life, and he speaks in praise of refraining from taking life. In this way, his bodily behavior is pure in three ways.1

“Further, he reflects thus: ‘If someone, by way of theft, were to take from me what I haven’t given, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I, by way of theft, were to take from another what he/she hadn’t given, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given, he gets others to refrain from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given, and he speaks in praise of refraining from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given. In this way, his bodily behavior is pure in three ways.

“Further, he reflects thus: ‘If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to commit adultery with the wives of another, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from sexual misconduct, he gets others to refrain from sexual misconduct, and he speaks in praise of refraining from sexual misconduct. In this way, his bodily behavior is pure in three ways.

“Further, he reflects thus: ‘If someone were to damage my well-being by telling a lie, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to damage the well-being of another by telling a lie, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from telling lies, he gets others to refrain from telling lies, and he speaks in praise of refraining from telling lies. In this way, his verbal behavior is pure in three ways.

~ the Buddha, Samyutta Nikaya 55:7, transl. Thanissaro https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN55_7.html

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


text:
Reading your way to Nirvana?
Why is it difficult, if not impossible, to read your way to freedom from suffering(Nirvana)? What if you read the advanced Abhidhamma teachings? Is there such a thing as naturally occurring mindfulness in people that lack a mindfulness practice  but read the Dhamma all the time?

You cannot read your way to Nirvana. Without jhana and meditation, there can't be attainment of Nirvana.

As he was sitting there he said to
the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
dwells in the Dhamma?"
"Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
to you."
AN 5.73

But you if you study the Dhamma and ponder it often, it may lead you to stream entry.

“Good, good, Sāriputta! For the factors of stream-entry are
associating with good people, listening to the true teaching, proper
attention, and practicing in line with the teaching.
SN 55.5

isn't there a difference between rote reading and comprehension?  if one actually was to comprehend (believe too) the dhamma, then one naturally would fall into the pattern of the dhamma...

"But if you study the Dhamma and ponder it often, it may lead you to stream entry." An important distinction.

@blue_ego That's stream entry

Buddhist scriptures have examples of people hearing the dhamma/dharma explained and coming to deep realizations, so it's not unheard of.
And there are many contemporary examples of people spontaneously having deep insights that in some ways correspond to accounts of people reaching awakening. Near death experiences, to name just one category.
And what about psychedelic ego death experiences - they seem to have profound effects on people.
Of course this is not achieved by reading per se, but these examples open the door to the possibility of (temporary) spiritual attainment without overt spiritual practice.
Muhammad apparently fell into trances where he communicated with angels who dictated the Quran to him.
Perhaps it's difficult to realize nirvana through reading because reading engages the rational faculties of the mind which tend towards differentiation and discrimination rather than expansion and elevation? Perhaps reading poetry, slowly, without trying for dialectical knowledge is more conducive to waking up to nirvana?
Perhaps trying to really work with the ways of seeing the Buddha intimates might also do it. Actively seeing every phenomenon as empty of inherent existence, for example, but then that might be considered crossing over into dharmic practice.
One of the yogic paths centers around formal learning, as does the Advaita Vedanta school.
Just some reflections. So many people, so many paths. Few things are impossible.

How could reading ever bring about anything but knowledge of information?
Do you think reading gives you experience?
Nibbanna is AN experience, not something that is learned, hence why it is inexplicable and not able to be written down as it is not information one can actually share, that in turn could be "learned" by reading.
To "attain" this experience one needs to prepare the mind and grasp concepts (concepts that can be shared via knowledge/information gained from reading) that in turn need to be experienced within ones psyche, not intellectually known by just reading.
Reading in of itself is actually quite superficial towards the path to liberation, in fact it is superficial in any sort skill one would want to learn. Practical experience is more poignant and actually useful.

Enlightenment is cognitive. It is understanding. It is possible to become a stream winner by hearing the Dhamma, so it should be possible to become a stream winner by reading the Dhamma. That said, the conditions need to be right. Many people read the Dhamma and get no where. If you are practicing sense restraint (8 precepts), you will probably be in the right frame of mind to understand.
Meditation is overrated. I don't know of a single sutta of someone becoming a sotapanna by meditation. They all become sotapannas by hearing Dhamma. So read suttas, contemplate them, and turn them over in your mind. In my opinion, it's better to listen to suttas than to read them. The Buddha based his pedagogy around spoken teachings which contributes to the repetition and phrasing. I believe you will have a better chance of breakthrough to stream entry by listening than reading.
Also, your time will be better spent ignoring Abdhidhamma. Those very technical details aren't important. A sotapanna has Right View. Loosely speaking, Right View is about the four noble truths and dependent origination. These are topics the Buddha talked about frequently in the suttas.

“If there is no touch, can you feel?”


text:
What do "contradictions" mean in Buddhist philosophy?
I read another answer here which discussed avoiding actions that lead to "contradictions" (such as lying, stealing), which are considered "evil". The answer was in response to someone else's question about where does the concept of morality come from in Buddhism. A contradiction means "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another". I'm not really sure I understand what the "contradiction" is with stealing, for example.

The results of unskillful action tend to bring conflict. In one's own mind, and with other beings. Does that help?

You must have heard about the Four Noble Truths. There is dukkha, origination of dukkha, cessation of dukkha, and path or method of incrementally attaining said cessation of dukkha.
Dukkha is defined as "Association with the unbeloved; separation from the loved; Not getting what is wanted".
If you sit down and meditate on the above you should see that it means a kind of subjective discord or momentary mismatch between "what is" (what you see as reality") and "what should be" (your expectation or romantic ideal).
This is an essence of contradiction, a kind of inner conflict (in the stream of recognitions/associations/intepretations that creates an illusion called consciousness.)
All dukkha has a nature of contradiction, conflict, clash, discord, disharmony, falsity, wrongness, mismatch. Conversely, the opposite of dukkha has a nature of match, concord, harmony, peace, suchness, truth.
Next, the Second and Third Noble Truths define origination and cessation of dukkha as clinging/attachment and letting go correspondingly. This is a perfectly valid and correct observation in the subjective universe of an individual given our definition of dukkha as mismatch or contradiction between "is" and "should". Indeed, it is attachment to an unrealistic expectation that holds the contradiction together, and letting go of this expectation dissolves the contradiction.
However, many of the more coarse and brutal cases of inner conflicts and contradictions come from the objective situation surrounding the individual. For example, an external conflict with law caused by stealing creates an internal conflict between person's desire to take a walk and the reality of them being confined in prison. If you follow this chain further back, you'll see that the conflict with law was caused by a conflict between the person's desire to have the object and the reality of it belonging to its rightful owner.
This is just a basic contrived example, but you can see how conflicts and contradictions tend to chain. Similar examples can be described with other of the five precepts e.g. lying, sowing divisive speech, violence, and intoxication. They create a kind of contradiction that chains on and on until it becomes a painful experience of expectation mismatch in someone's mind.
This is why the Fourth Noble Truth, the path, does not just prescribe sitting in meditation and letting go of all attachments to achieve cessation of inner conflict, no. Buddha knew that such an approach would be completely unrealistic if the external situation keeps generating causes of coarse external contradictions becoming new internal contradictions becoming dukkha. This is why the Noble Eightfold Path describes a set of practices designed to reduce and eliminate all sources of coarse external contradictions. Only in its later "steps" does it talk about inner practices like mindfulness and meditation.
That said, the noble path as it's given in traditional literature is just a schematic. The idea of the path is clearly the methodical systematic elimination of causes of all conflict and contradiction, starting from the coarser and progressively more and more subtle.
Once we get to the jhana practice, the same principle holds. The first four jhanas are elimination of contradictions, from the more coarse ones in the first jhana (the thoughts that something is wrong with self or the world), to the more refined conflict of the second jhana (between the image of rightness created with  the autosuggestions, and the fact that one has to keep using the autosuggestions to keep generating the rightness, which makes it somewhat artificial and inauthentic). The same idea plays out in the third and forth jhanas, and then in the four formless jhanas, but it would be irresponsible for me to try and explain it all in a single answer.
The important thing to understand is that this principle, of dukkha having the nature of contradiction and cessation of dukkha requiring cessation of contradiction, holds from the beginning of Buddhist path all the way to Nirvana.
What I'm doing here is trying to expound the meaning of the traditional Pali Canon descriptions, in my own words.
In doing so, it is a bit difficult to come up with universally acceptable terminology so forgive me if my nouns and adjectives are all over the place. I hope the above gives a more clear idea of what I meant by the contradictions.

Where does the Buddha talk about "external contradictions?" Isn't everything experienced internally, consciously?  Aren't contradictions about reality internal views, wrong views?

The Buddha does not talk about conflicts and contradictions the way I do, whether external or internal, he uses a different language. He does make mention of troubles caused by one's karma / unskilful action, as you said in the top comment, and that's what I characterized as having the nature of contradiction.

yes, but contradiction is a violence too. it takes the forms of delusion. does delusion want any pizza?

Delusion is a contradiction (with truth). Desire is a contradiction too (with the status quo).


text:
Is thinking just measuring and comparing?
A few years ago, I listened to a dharma talk given by Ajahn Succito. In it, he said that we can think of the mind as having three aspects to it: awareness, feeling, and thinking (thinking includes memory ability). And I think that it was in the same talk where he casually threw out this statement: Thinking is basically just measuring and comparing.
It's a rather humbling statement, isn't it? He didn't expand on the statement, so it comes back to me every once in a while, and I wonder: Can it really be that simple? I don't know, but it does seem right to me for some reason.
Not sure it matters much, but I do think he included the word "basically", as I quoted above. What do you think? Is there anything important missing from his statement?

measuring the idea

Not all thoughts can be categorised in that specific way. Ajahn Succito was a Theravada monk, so it is highly likely that he was referring to something called conceit, of which there are nine types, the theme of which revolves around measuring and comparing.
Conceit in Theravada terms has a very specific outline and very specific details that define that outline. In that typified Theravada view - where various movements of the mind are fragmented into a ridiculous procession of elements, units and items to be known, discerned or observed - one monitors how that phenomena arises, abides and wanes out of existence – in this case, the way in which conceit manifests.
If Ajhan Succito was indeed speaking about conceit, then please read Theravada’s – very detailed – description of conceit from another Theravada monk called Yuttadhammo here, who delivers its seeming complexity rather simply. He also includes two excellent excerpts by Mahasi Sayadaw to help drive the point home. That might clear things up, a little.
So, yes, in Theravada, there is always something missing in what they have to say! They paint a rich tapestry of mind movements for those who are inclined to observe in that particular way.
Now, in my typified manner, I can’t help but include the illogical logic of Zen. It is from the perspective of Zen that other interesting vistas will show themselves, perhaps sometimes reflected as if from a sphere whereupon one is presented with a 360 degree view of the once-famed dire situation we call samsara, which is actually heaven on earth.
On that note, Zen master Dogan said -

Although its light is wide and great, the Moon is reflected in a puddle one inch wide. The whole Moon and the entire sky is reflected
in one dew drop on the grass.

Following on from your question, (which might be about conceit) Dogen he also said –

“To enter the Buddha Way is to stop discriminating between good and
evil and to cast aside the mind that says this is good and that is
bad.”

"Not all thoughts can be categorised in that specific way." Your opening sentence alludes to something being missing. What?

@stick-in-hand - When you go to open a tin of beans, you select an implement called a tin-opener. The tin-opener performs a simple task: it helps you open the tin of beans. Once they are open, you put the tin-opener away. You don't believe in the tin-opener. It's there when it's needed, and gone when it's not. Thoughts are like this tin-opener. They serve only a very simple function. The issue arises when one believes the thoughts refer to something substantial, something in time. At best, thoughts only refer to what is currently needed in the immediate moment.

Words have meaning, they are substantial in themselves, but they point away from themselves and at something worth knowing. To some degree, everything is ineffable, but a dismissive attitude towards words leads to delusion. Words are how and why the ajahns are able to make use of the miracle of instruction.  "And what is the miracle of instruction? There is the case where a certain person gives instruction in this way: ‘Direct your thought in this way, don’t direct it in that. Attend to things in this way, don’t attend to them in that. Let go of this, enter and remain in that.’"

Thanks for your thoughts on conceit.

Liked “samsara is heaven on earth”

i agree conceit is a form of expression, i.e. 'i am'

I believe you can disprove that thinking is "measuring and comparing" with your own mind. "I'm running low on apples and milk. I need to get groceries. I'll go to the store tomorrow after work". That is an example of thinking without measuring or comparing. I'm simply planning when to go to the store.