text:
What's the advice for dealing with an abusive partner?
How would one deal with a verbally or otherwise abusive partner who gets upset over nothing and let's anger loose?
Assuming the abuser realizes they have a problem but are unable to solve the behavioral issue.
How could one best advise everyone involved in such a relationship based on the Buddhist texts & practices?
Would be great if answers are referenced but it's not a requirement.
Thanks

I think the texts are ambiguous -- they generally have advice which ranges from, "there's no fellowship with a fool", to, "it can be great if the partners are equal and/or well-behaved and living in tune", to, "your morality (including e.g. good-will) should be unconditional".
If the "abuser" can't solve the issue then in my experience that requires external intervention (e.g. a doctor or psychiatrist), and/or a change in the situation or relationship or the way in which the couple communicates (e.g. relationship counsellor or therapist of some sort), and/or possibly divorce lawyers.
If it isn't psychiatric then consider it may be a psychological problem, like post-traumatic stress.
If the problem persists perhaps the partners suffer from learned helplessness ...

Over the past few decades, neuroscience has provided insight into learned helplessness and shown that the original theory actually had it backwards: the brain's default state is to assume that control is not present, and the presence of "helpfulness" is what is actually learned.

... or perhaps "ignorance" about how to solve it -- so do, try to find help if you can't solve it.
I also suggest you might think it's the other person's problem ("they're the abuser who misbehaves, I am the victim") but when you're in a relationship it's not that simple -- if you went to Al-Anon/Alateen meetings for example you might hear how the behaviour of the family permits or cooperates with the continued misbehaviour.
A counsellor might provide some neutral ground and ensure that both parties are listened to.
A separation (a least a temporary or trial one) might be an option, to explore or consider -- or even just a holiday -- or some other agreement, perhaps a renegotiation of fundamental premises (like "who is expected to do what, and when?"), which a counsellor might suggest.
Beware that people have limits -- if one person is so stressed that they behave irrationally, the other partner too might be vulnerable (to stress and irrationality and abusive behaviour) even if to a different extent/manifestation.
Being too generous or permissive of bad behaviour might be harmful, a teacher (or a paid counsellor) might help to assess if you're going too far.
Unconditional love might in the end be the greatest thing -- or perhaps it's foolish -- who knows, perhaps it's up to you.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

This might be relevant to your question too -- Reconciliation, Right & Wrong -- and might match some of the things I suggested, e.g. ...

A monk seeking reconciliation with a lay person follows a similar pattern, with another monk, on friendly terms with the lay person, acting as mediator.

... suggests that having a third-person neutral/friendly counsellor might help to repair a relationship.

In the Sujāta-sutta the Buddha speaks of seven types of wives, The first three kinds are heading for unhappiness in this life and the next the last 4 are heading for happiness in this life or the next. The same can be said for the male spouse.
When someone is doing something to you it is almost always because of something you have done previously in this life or earlier. Therefore if you don't patiently tolerate all the abuse hurled towards you the bad kamma won't be extinguished as you are creating more kamma. This just leads to an infinite cycle where you will always be with someone who is abusive in a lot of births.
Best course of action would either be to tolerate everything that keeps happening or you somehow find a way to break off from the relationship without hurting your partner.


text:
Buddhism Supernatural feats and abilities
Recently i experiencing the psychic abilities, telepathy and seeing other dimension sentiment when i having this so call 3rd eye syndrome (All of it)
https://www.holycitysinner.com/2020/01/22/signs-your-third-eye-is-starting-to-see/
My psychic ability became more accurate and it's like Deja Vu then things really happened after 1-2 months. It's applicable to the stock market prices speculation price, date and how exactly it is speculated predicted 100% by mostly instinct. Sometimes when i am fully focused then i feel reading other people's mind and i will be winning throughout the night like a poker game, it's up to 90% accuracy. I am just a beginner poker player and winning all the senior players. I dont gamble much also. I felt so scared.
I used to be a Buddhism and Shaolin Kung Fu practitioner. I used to meditate in a martial arts way where there is a study that this can unlock the 7 chakra. The more I practice, the more I sense this ability. Sometime If i fully focus especially during critical time, i can think much faster, accurate even i sense future things.
I visited some doctors and my Buddhism senior. Some said use it for good, some said stop meditating.
My Buddhism senior commented that if it is so happening then it's devil abilities because I ' m really far far away from enlightenment requirement. Out of the 10 good deeds. I guess I only achieved 4 good merits, the rest just so so.
Question: Does it happen to someone just a 5-6 years Buddhism or junior practitioner ? Why such a things happening according to Buddhism? I just want to be a normal people and i dont require such abilities at the moment because my "good deed" is not good enough, perhaps i will use this for gambling or stock market or into devil's direction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha#:~:text=Psychic%20Abilities,-See%20also%3A%20Abhijñā&text=Following%20his%20enlightenment%2C%20the%20Buddha,and%20making%20copies%20of%20himself

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

Psychic powers are not necessary to end suffering:

DN24:1.4.13: What do you think, Sunakkhatta?
DN24:1.4.14: Whether or not there is a demonstration of psychic power, does my teaching lead someone who practices it to the goal of the complete ending of suffering?’
DN24:1.4.15: ‘It does, sir.’

Phenomena, including psychic powers, appear and disappear on their own without our grasping at them:

AN9.36:2.3: Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self.

Focus on the Noble Eightfold Path instead of the phenomena. AN9.36 continues further, instructing us to experience and relinquish such phenomena with deeper practice--eventually, perception of those phenomena will fade with greater skill in immersion:

AN9.36:9.4: They turn their mind away from those things,
...
AN9.36:10.2: But the two dimensions that depend on these—the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, and the cessation of perception and feeling—are properly explained by mendicants who are skilled in these attainments and skilled in emerging from them, after they’ve entered them and emerged from them.”

Supernatural natural feats and abilities are not considered as a special part of the enlightenment. Even a person without having those powers would have enlightened instantly.

I agree with Oya Mist that psychic powers are not necessary for enlightenment. Additionally, the powers can become a major distraction. If you become interested in developing them, then you should wait until after you have reached enlightenment. The powers are a normal addition to an enlightened one. In fact, after awakening, the powers seem to appear as needed, on the spur of the moment.

some said stop meditating.

LOL of course authorities are normally afraid of people getting powerful. Don't mind about them, they're just afraid of losing control over the population and thus their privileges.
So; enjoy your new powers without fear; use them for good purposes. Try not to get addicted to gambling though. But earning a fortune will let you meditate better, without worrying about bills for example.
Being clairvoyant, maybe you could even talk to the bodhisattvas/buddhas like Avalokiteshvara or Amitabha and get teachings directly from them without having to rely on scriptures and authorities. That may help you reach enlightenment.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can a monk live with a male lay person?
I've found a similar question;
Are theravada monks allowed to stay in lay people's house?
However it was asked by a woman and nobody answered otherwise.
What i wonder is if there are any restrictions on living in the same house as a male lay disciple and relying on the lay person for alms and requisites?
Thank you.

A monk may not spend more than 3 nights with a layman (Theravada vinaya). However...over time, some traditions have managed to find loopholes in this to deal with some practical difficulties (for example, a temporarily crowded monastery where some laymen need to be housed in bhikkhu quarters or vice versa).
The loophole I have seen used is this: It's not considered "spending a night" if one of you leaves the dwelling before sunrise. In this way, the 3 day limit has been extended indefinitely. Some orders are fine with this, some don't like it.

A Bhikkhu is restricted to max. three nights sleeping under the same roof with lay-people, better Non-Bhikkhus (which incl. novices and some Nikayas incl. animal as well).
"Under one roof" is also seen often differently, sometimes technical in regard of roof seen, sometimes as matter of touch each other ("privacy"), as the origin story suggest that it's a matter of danger of lose of respect toward monk(s) if seeing ordinary things while he sleeps...etc.
As for the practice (for those in training) it's actually not good for Bhikkhus (but also for others after Paths/fruits) to spend even short time in near association with "non-likewise" or "lower".
It's how ever great goodness if a mature Bhikkhu let a non-Bhikkhu dwell near for a while.
General is near association, living near, with householder and real novices not good and often encouraged to avoid by the Sublime Buddha, not to speak of improper association or dependency.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for escape from this wheel.]

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


text:
How to rebuild a relationship after a breach of trust?
What are the Buddhist norms & guidelines for rebuilding a relationship after a breach of trust?

Reconciliation, Right & Wrong might give first ideas. Details depend on the kind of relation (between whom), and Mahavagga has parts on teacher/Studend ones, and Nyom Ruslan would know proper place to ask.

talk to them with honesty. this isn't a specifically buddhist answer

In a non-Buddhist relationship (such as described in AN 4.53), either one or both parties don't follow the five precepts and other Buddhist principles (such as the principles listed in DN 31). Obviously, the non-Buddhist relationship is a "doomed" relationship, where, per AN 7.63, one party is the killer of the other party or the killer of the relationship.
Where as in a Buddhist relationship, since each party has the intention to follow the five precepts and other Buddhist principles, any transgressions are willingly reconciled using honesty (sacca), training (dama) & patience (forgiveness), per SN 10.12.
Also, Buddhists make confession to the Triple Gem, as found here at the top of page 21, middle of page 23 and bottom of page 25.

Suggest replacing "is a doomed relationship" with "can be a doomed relationship".  My wife was my friend before I became a Buddhist. AN7.63:13.1: But the kinds of wives here called

AN7.63:13.2: ... friend...
AN7.63:13.3: steadfast in their own morality, restrained for a long time,
AN7.63:13.4: when their body breaks up they set course for a good place.

I can't think of any instances where the Buddha specifically addresses your question. However, you may find the Patience chapter in Santideva's Bodhicaravatara (Way of the Bodhisattva) quite helpful.
Of course, the whole chapter is profoundly useful (as is the entire text), but you may want to have a look, starting at verse 38 of chapter six. Here's a link: https://www.tibethouse.jp/about/buddhism/text/pdfs/Bodhisattvas_way_English.pdf


text:
Buddhist take on parents staying together for the children?
How would one go about figuring out if it is wise to stay together for the sake of the children or if it is time to split up?
What would be the guiding principles for figuring this out based on Buddhist principles and Buddha's advice for married couples and the general sentiment of the teachings historically attributed to the Buddha.
Prefer answers based on Vibhajavadin traditions and texts held to be true by those schools.

"Based on Buddhist principles"? That would be difficult to talk about. It seems as though you needed to add that to make the question acceptable here. That's unfortunate. Besides, which Buddhism are we referring to?

I think it should be clear now. I am inquiring on how to best advice one who is facing these difficulties and wants to reevaluate one's strategy and priorities based on the Buddhist logic and values inferable from the texts.

What would be the guiding principles for figuring this out based on Buddhist principles and Buddha's advice for married couples and the general sentiment of the teachings historically attributed to the Buddha.

As others already mentioned, the teaching is mostly for monastics with some small portion just giving generic advice to the lays. However, one can always use logic and common sense to come up with the best solution for everyone. A common mistake is the automatic assumption about the benefit of sacrificing oneself for the sake of the children, while in reality, there're instances where it's even more harmful to them. Imagine staying with your spouse, but engaging in constant back and forth arguments using harsh, abusive language, Or, on the other extreme, remain completely silent and let the spouse spewing all the nasty words all day long. Both of those stay-together scenarios would actually do more harm to the children than good. So, use one's own intelligence and common sense to evaluate the situation. While it'd obviously be best for parents to try to work things out and stay together, but if that means it'll create a living hell for both parties, and/or it doesn't actually benefit children, or even does more harm to them, then one might have to consider the idea to go one's own separate way, for the sake of everyone involved.

The suttas are mostly (not all) by and for monks, less detailed on the subject of married life and so on.
Buddhism & Divorce implies there's not a lot of explicit doctrine on the subject -- perhaps little more than that "lay life is confining and a dusty path".
You might be interested in a book The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness. from which I summarised this answer -- it's based on the author's finding suttas that are relevant to lay life -- unfortunately I don't own a copy so I can't tell you now what it says about children.
This article -- A Happy Married Life -- might be helpful. It includes a section "Parental Responsibilities" (I'd suggest you read first only the first sentence of each paragraph to get an overview).
Again I imagine that the situations vary and that you could use some proper (personal, in-person and perhaps professional) counsel.
When I tried to answer your question What's the advice for dealing with an abusive partner? I did so without considering that there might be children involved, in the house. In my limited personal experience I think that children are better with one parent who loves them than with two who don't, and personally I always imagined that if I were a parent myself then I might be less willing and less able (because it would be less moral, less dutiful) to tolerate (condone, perpetuate) an abusive or less-than-ideal partner, even or especially "for the children".
But this is me describing or generalising from my personal experience, not yours -- so for that and other reasons I suggest you find a counsellor to discuss this with. Like if you were ill you should probably talk with a doctor in person, not self-diagnose nor read a book of pharmacology.


text:
How to deal with difficult in-laws?
What are some "skillful means" of getting through holidays, birthdays, graduations and etc. when your in-laws are constantly making passive aggressive statements about you or the way you raise your kids.
Are there Buddhist techniques one can use to aleviate the anxiety and the irritability associated with these situations?

I first encountered the Buddhist perspective on resentment with DN33. It quite startled me because no action was required other than letting go. The day I read this, a car tried to run me over in the crosswalk. So I tried what the Buddha said and it worked. Very puzzling!

DN33:3.2.15: Thinking: ‘They did wrong to me, but what can I possibly do?’ you get rid of resentment.

Another sutta provides more specific help in letting go of resentment:

AN5.161:1.1:“Mendicants, a mendicant should use these five methods to completely get rid of resentment when it has arisen toward anyone. What five?  You should develop love for a person you resent.  That’s how to get rid of resentment for that person.  You should develop compassion for a person you resent. …  You should develop equanimity for a person you resent. … You should disregard a person you resent, paying no attention to them. …  You should apply the concept that we are the owners of our deeds to that person: ‘This venerable is the owner of their deeds and heir to their deeds. Deeds are their womb, their relative, and their refuge. They shall be the heir of whatever deeds they do, whether good or bad.’  That’s how to get rid of resentment for that person. A mendicant should use these five methods to completely get rid of resentment when it has arisen toward anyone.”

May you and your family find peace and an end to suffering.


text:
Accurate and Concise Translation of Dhamma Qualities
The common stanza describing qualities of dhamma goes as "Swakkatho bhagawatho dhammo sandittiko..." which describes six of them. I am looking for an accurate and concise translation of this from someone good in both Pali and English; and of course Buddhism

This sounds & doesn't sound like what you are looking for: Properties of Dhamma:

Steadfastness of the Dhamma
The orderliness of the Dhamma
All processes are inconstant, suffering, and all phenomena are not-self
(from Iti. 51) From "The complete Book of the Buddha's Lists

There's one here -- Dhammānussati:

Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo: sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī ti.

The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā: visible here and now, immediate, inviting to come and see, effective, to be individually ascertained by the wise.

If you use a mouse to hover over one of the coloured words (of English or Pali) there's a popup containing a little definition of the Pali:

“(1)Svakhato Bhagavata Dhammo, (2)Sanditthiko, (3)Akaliko,(4)Ehipassiko, (5)Opanayiko, (6)Paccattam Veditabbo Vennuhi ti.”
"(1)Well expounded is the Dhamma of the Exalted One, (2)visible here and  now, (3)immediately  effective, (4)inviting  one  to  come  and see, (5)leading onwards, (6)to be realized by the wise each for himself."
Source
PDF Pg 16, The definitions are further explained in the book.


text:
Sunyata and Void. How can be the void without a super consciousness?
Vedantist calls it Sunya or Sunyata. Buddhists calls it Void .
If you once perceive that voidness , is “something”.
They both get inside there and return back, saying that was Samadhi.
How can be Samadhi without Consciousness , isn’t it like susupti or just artificial?

Your question is unclear. What is susupti? Are you referring to nirodha samapatti (cessation of feeling and perception)? Or are you referring to Theravada emptiness i.e. all phenomena is empty of a self? Or are you referring to the Madhyamaka emptiness i.e. all phenomena is empty of intrinsic substance? And why must there be consciousness in whatever the state that you're talking about (which is also unclear)? And why must it be the super consciousness of a greater entity like God's consciousness?

@ruben2020 you can search susupti on the internet. Whatever is , the question is quite clear: if you can reach a state of emptiness , how can you state that Void is not part of a higher consciousness (aka God) but it is just Void? If you “feel” the Void during meditation and you call it nirodha samapatti for example, how do you know that it is just Void instead of being Void before or inside another greater Consciousness , which is perceived as Void (Sunyata, as the Vedantists think and argue with you) but is higher than that simple state of nothing ? (super consciousness pervading everything)

The Void is sometimes implied differently than other times
in English. Existential descriptioning isn't English's long suit.
Maybe Zen/ Chan discussions of the concept are generally more prominent
overall.
Confusion etc isn't The Void.
In The True Void 'is' Reality. There isn't confusion.
There isn't dukkha. There isn't cloudiness.
There isn't any illusion. There isn't delusion.
In The Void there is nonmisinterpretation.
Attempts to define The Void tend to be circular or inaccurate.
The description of going into it or something isn't vague enough.
The question does a quite good job of nonpigeonholing of it.
Maybe lost something in translation: maybe more at
based on reasonableness, logic is very limited by concrete
things available for its processes & sometimes either cannot conclude
because of insufficient information etc, or comes up with
rather nonsensible conclusions because of the data available.
Buddhism provides guidelines for addressing things which
haven't necessarily become data yet, and how previously
unencountered data can be reasonably addressed. Reasonable
consideration may be more effective than logic only.
The Void mightn't be so like a temporary journey to
someplace or other, real or existential, etc, as cited in the
question. Maybe very nice spots, but they aren't descriptions of
The True Void. Those sound more like heavens or something.
And may be Impermanent.
Consciousnesses arent really so much part of The Void,
consciousnesses are more at heavens etc.
Logical typical word description doesnt do so well with
trying to describe The Void. Despite many people writing books
about it, giving things names etc, The Void is different from
names or groups of words and most reference points. So
fundamental description of The Void which uses words would tend
to be circular/ misleading.
Some things can 'be' without being grounded in ordinary descriptioning.
That's sort of the answer to the question, in language. Which is a very
Good & nicely asked question.

Thank You. At least you tried to describe a Buddhist Concept with Logic. Logic is indeed the awareness that , with practice, can lead an aspirant to search for the truth. Using quotation of the Buddha is not enough. Vajrayana teaches a lot on it.

You are very welcome! yes!

OP: Whatever is,the question is quite clear: if you can reach a
state of emptiness , how can you state that Void is not part of a
higher consciousness (aka God) but it is just Void? If you “feel” the
Void during meditation and you call it nirodha samapatti for example,
how do you know that it is just Void instead of being Void before or
inside another greater Consciousness , which is perceived as Void
(Sunyata, as the Vedantists think and argue with you) but is higher
than that simple state of nothing ? (super consciousness pervading
everything)

I think we should put the record straight here and avoid distorting the original teachings of the Buddha, as found in the Sutta Pitaka. There is no "higher consciousness (aka God)" or "super consciousness pervading everything" or Atman or Brahman in the original teachings of the Buddha.
I understand your premise - if in meditation, you attained a state of void, then there must be some higher consciousness (aka God) that is perceiving it. This higher consciousness is usually attributed to God as the Self or Super Soul (Atman) in Vedanta. This is described in the Hindu text Bhagavad Gita 13.14.
Advaitin gurus would suggest you to ask "Who am I?" and discover that the true "I" is Atman, which is Brahman (God). The Atman is also the Eternal Witness, or the Cosmic Consciousness, the "I" of every self-conscious being. After attaining Self-Realization (where the little ego-self drops away), one would remain existing forever as this one single Eternal Witness or Cosmic Consciousness, that witnesses through every self-conscious being and even witnesses directly without any beings.
What did the Buddha teach?
The self (atta or Atma) is the idea or thought that arises out of the inter-operation or inter-working of the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness). This is similar to how music is created when different parts of a musical instrument works together. See Lute Sutta. How the five aggregates work together is described by Dependent Origination.
Sabbe dhamma anatta (Dhammapada 279) means that all phenomena (including Nibbana), is not self. If you break a musical instrument into pieces, you won't be able to find music in any of the constituent parts - Lute Sutta. If you look at the five aggregates, you cannot find the self there. The Buddha means here that there is no eternal and permanent core of one's being, that is the self, not even Nibbana.
Rather, the self is an impermanent changing idea, that arises and passes away from moment to moment, depending on the operation of the five aggregates, just as other mentally generated ideas.
And what about consciousness? The Buddha taught the following, from MN 38:

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition
dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on
the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned
as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose
and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness
arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as
tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body
and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is
reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the
particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns
dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns
dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns
dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns
dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire
burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire
burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too,
consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on
which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and
forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises
dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as
mind-consciousness.

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.
This is the only consciousness that there is, in the original teachings of the Buddha. There's no super consciousness or higher consciousness.
Also from the same sutta (MN 38):

The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
long time.”

The Buddha states unequivocally that consciousness is dependently originated based on conditions. There is no independent standalone permanent consciousness.  There's no super consciousness or higher consciousness.
Some people claimed that MN 49 talks about a super consciousness or infinite consciousness, but that turned out to be a mistranslation. The sutta was talking about Nirvana or Nibbana - please see this answer.
From The All Sutta (also see this question):

"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.

Once again, there's no super consciousness or higher consciousness, outside the range of The All.
Now, what is shunya or shunyata (emptiness or void)? This is not a state of attainment or state of consciousness or state of reality or state of mind in Buddhism.
This is a statement of the fact of reality, by the Buddha in SN 35.85:

Then Ven. Ananda 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, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty,
lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self:
Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of
a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self
or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness...
Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
"The ear is empty...
"The nose is empty...
"The tongue is empty...
"The body is empty...
"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a
self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the
world is empty."

This is a statement of the fact of reality that absolutely everything is empty of a self (Atman).
Now, what about that which is experienced?
We can talk about two different things which are experienced. One is Nirvana or Nibbana. This can be experienced by the Arahat (one who has become enlightened or awakened, or one who has become liberated from suffering) even outside of meditation.
Nibbana is described in this answer - please see that answer for sutta quotes:

Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,
not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a
feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not
conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not
arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind
can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about
it.
Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced when
encountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses) or when
encountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses).
But for an arahat, sukha or bliss (in this context) is experienced
when encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana.

That is Nibbana, and not god or Brahman or any kind of Ultimate Reality. It is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements.
The second is nirodha samapatti. This is the state beyond the 8 jhana states. This is described on this page:

'attainment of extinction' (S. XIV, 11), also called
saññā-vedayita-nirodha, 'extinction of feeling and perception', is the
temporary suspension of all consciousness and mental activity,
following immediately upon the semi-conscious state called 'sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception' (s. jhāna, 8). The absolutely
necessary pre-conditions to its attainment are said to be perfect
mastery of all the 8 absorptions (jhāna), as well as the previous
attainment of Anāgāmī or Arahantship (s. ariya-puggala).
According to Vis.M. XXIII, the entering into this state takes place in
the following way: by means of mental tranquillity (samatha) and
insight (vipassanā) one has to pass through all the 8 absorptions one
after the other up to the sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception and then one has to bring this
state to an end. If, namely, according to the Vis.M., the disciple
(Anāgāmī or Arahat) passes through the absorption merely by means of
tranquillity, i.e. concentration, he will only attain the sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and then come to a standstill;
if, on the other hand, he proceeds only with insight, he will reach
the fruition (phala) of Anāgāmī or Arahantship. He, however, who by
means of both faculties has risen from absorption to absorption and,
having made the necessary preparations, brings the sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception to an end, such a one reaches
the state of extinction. Whilst the disciple is passing through the 8
absorptions, he each time emerges from the absorption attained, and
regards with his insight all the mental phenomena constituting that
special absorption, as impermanent, miserable and impersonal. Then he
again enters the next higher absorption, and thus, after each
absorption practising insight, he at last reaches the state of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and thereafter the full
extinction. This state, according to the Com., may last for 7 days or
even longer. Immediately at the rising from this state, however, there
arises in the Anāgāmī the fruition of Anāgāmiship (anāgāmi-phala), in
the Arahat the fruition of Arahantship (arahatta-phala).
With regard to the difference existing between the monk abiding in
this state of extinction on the one hand, and a dead person on the
other hand, M 43 says: "In him who is dead, and whose life has come to
an end, the bodily (in-and-out breathing), verbal (thought-conception
and discursive thinking), and mental functions (s. sankhāra, 2) have
become suspended and come to a standstill, life is exhausted, the
vital heat extinguished, the faculties are destroyed. Also in the monk
who has reached 'extinction of perception and feeling'
(saññā-vedayita-nirodha), the bodily, verbal and mental functions have
been suspended and come to a standstill, but life is not exhausted,
the vital heat not extinguished, and the faculties are not destroyed."

So, the question comes, who or what experiences nirodha samapatti?
The answer is no one and nothing. Why?
If all feeling, perception and consciousness is temporarily suspended, then it is not felt or perceived at all.
The Hindu notion of feeling stillness and bliss in meditation, applies to one or more of the conscious and semi-conscious states of jhana which are below nirodha samapatti. There are 8 such jhana (or dhyana) states explained in the suttas - 4 lower jhanas called rupa jhanas (or material jhanas) and 4 higher jhanas called arupa jhanas (or immaterial jhanas).
The 4 higher jhanas are the base of boundless space, the base of boundless consciousness, the base of nothingness, and the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception (see this essay). I speculate that the perception of all-pervading consciousness mentioned in Vedanta, is probably experienced in the 6th of the 8 jhanas - called the base of boundless consciousness. I also speculate that the perception of voidness may be experienced in the 7th of the 8 jhanas - called the base of nothingness. This is a semi-conscious state.
Ruslan is also right that according to the Buddha, "there are no contemplatives outside of the Buddha's path" (Dhammapada 254-255). In my opinion, this is because in other paths, the practitioners are not free from self-view or belief in a self (sakkaya-ditthi), which is one of the ten fetters (AN 10.13).

Thank You for your answer, but for my point of view is again forcing a concept = if you feel emptiness , you feel “something”.

@DoubtfulMonk Yes. in the 7th jhana, nothingness can be perceived - this is because the faculties or aggregates of feeling, perception and consciousness are still functioning in the 7th jhana. Mind or intellect consciousness (manoviññāṇa) is the type of consciousness that is functioning here. So, you are right. But it's not any kind of super consciousness or greater consciousness (aka God).

In Buddhism, there is a state called "Nirodha Samapatthi" or Cessation of Perception and feeling. It is said that in this state you are not conscious but the body has not died. The maximum duration of this state is seven days and you emerge from it and understand it as empty.

this doesn’t answer my question.

Vedanta doesn't have a word for the principle of nirodha samapatti which is an attainment on the treshold of nibbana, it is cessation as entering into by which taints come to an end, that knowledge of destruction of taints is not found outside of Buddha's teaching and Buddha's disciples.

@Ruslan that’s correct, this is why Vedantists and Buddhist argue. but your final reasoning is not based on logic. Are you arguing with religious statements only when you say “is not found outside of Buddha’s teaching and his disciples”? Can you really justify that Nirodha samapatti is not just susupti and so is part of a greater consciousness , like God’s one?

I don't know what susupti is, i'll just repeat what is in the Dhammapada; there are no contemplatives outside of the Buddha's path. I am sorry i can't help you with this question. I am just not trained in the vedic system of expression.

When I go to sleep, I wake up wanting coffee. I don't remember what happened when I slept, but somehow I wake up wanting coffee. I can even go to sleep thinking "arise at 6am" and I will arise at 6am, and I am still wanting coffee. Is there a super-consciousness there? I don't think so.
Consciousness is bound to choices and I certainly don't remember making any choices while sleeping. Alarm clocks don't make choices, they are conditioned to sound after a certain time. In the same way, I am conditioned to want coffee. I can condition myself to awake at 6am. In all of that, consciousness comes and goes.

MN102:7.3: But if any ascetic or brahmin should say this: ‘Apart from form, feeling, perception, and choices, I will describe the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and reappearing, its growth, increase, and maturity.’
MN102:7.5: That is not possible.
MN102:7.6: ‘All that is conditioned and coarse. But there is the cessation of conditions—that is real.’
MN102:7.7: Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.

Suffering is conditioned. The Noble EightFold Path is conditioned. May all sentient being condition themselves beyond suffering. That would be...super!

Regarding "super-consciousness", in MN38, the Buddha corrects the understanding of Sāti.

MN38:3.5: “Is it really true, Reverend Sāti, that you have such a harmful misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another’?”

In particular, he said:

MN38:5.12: “Silly man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way?  Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause?  But still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and make much bad karma.

The Buddha addressed suffering and taught the role of consciousness in that suffering.

Have you ever experienced Voidness during meditation?

Even after forty years of meditation, that is difficult to answer directly. However, I think we both have experienced consciousness as the pachinko ball of contacts with nothing between.

i don’t think is a difficult question. During Buddhist meditation you can reach the Void. Otherwise you will not do it. So my question, to simplify , is : if you perceive that Void, and when you finish your “Samadhi” you felt “that” voidness,    how can you state , as a Buddhist , it is just void, while is part of a bigger , conscious , entity , (God) ? My question is obviously a provocation . Remember that Buddhism should be based on logic.

Your question is actually unclear. The suttas distinguish between: 1) space, 2) nothingness, 3) neither perception or non-perception, 4) cessation of perception and feeling, and 5) emptiness. All of these are void of form. These are perceived during meditation, not deduced logically.

However, I've added MN38 to address "super-consciousness". Perhaps that might help?

There is a mind state called “void”, but it is not Nibbana. This void is of the mind, when it is void of perceptions, feelings, thinking, everything that makes up what we understand as the Thinking conscious mind. What is left is knowing. But knowing of the void implies that it is not beyond mind. Mind, and consequently, knowing are created. To be in mind is to not be in Nibbana. IOW, you can’t realize Nibbana if you are stuck in mind, but you can experience a state of void.


text:
Which discourses list the factors needed for becoming successful?
I want help tracking down two discourses.
First discourse is where The Buddha is asked how long it takes to complete his training and he answers posing a counter question, then lists an amount of flawed qualities in a learner. It ends with him saying that if a disciple is of good quality the teaching can be reslized in 7 years... or in a day or so (this part similar to satipatthana sutta). I think this one is in the Anguttara Nikaya.
The second discourse i've heard claimed to list factors which lead to success in one's pursuit and the two;

Thinking about the thing one is developing
surrounding oneself with people who are into it

are included in that list iirc.
Thanks

Found the first one of them https://suttacentral.net/mn85/en/horner

"And what is meant by admirable friendship?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/kalyanamittata.html


text:
What does female Buddha mean?
I got introduced to this "Female Buddha" when I was looking name for my friend's daughter.
So what does female Buddha mean?
Wikipedia :

Tara (Buddhism)
Tara (Sanskrit: तारा, tārā; Tib. སྒྲོལ་མ, Dölma), Ārya Tārā, or Shayama Tara, also known as Jetsun Dölma (Tibetan language: rje btsun sgrol ma) in Tibetan Buddhism, is an important figure in Buddhism. She appears as a female bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism, and as a female Buddha in Vajrayana Buddhism. She is known as the "mother of liberation", and represents the virtues of success in work and achievements. She is known as Tara Bosatsu (多羅菩薩) in Japan, and occasionally as Duōluó Púsà (多羅菩薩) in Chinese Buddhism.

My question is what does this concept mean is she a person who appeared in past who's name is Tara?
Or is it philosophical concept that meditators seen she's appearing?
Also why this is not exist in Thervada Buddhism when statue is in Bihar state of India?

There's this in the article you referenced -- Origin as a Buddhist bodhisattva -- is that unclear, insufficient, are you asking more than that?

There are also articles like Female Deities In Vajrayana Buddhism -- but I don't know how reliable they are -- also I wonder whether this may be, partially, a topic which Tibetan teachers would prefer you learn from a teacher instead of discussing it in public (I know very little about it but I think might be true of a lot of Vajrayana and/or Tantra).

Semi (but not very) related topic -- What is a wrathful Buddha?

Also why this is not exist in Thervada Buddhism when statue is in Bihar state of India?

Probably because there's no concept of a female Buddha according to Early Buddhism (by Early Buddhism, I mean the earliest text strata translated into both the Theravada's Nikayas and Mahayana's Agamas).

“He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One—there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a man might be an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One—there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a woman could be a Wheel-turning Monarch…that a woman could occupy the position of Sakka [66]…that a woman could occupy the position of Māra…that a woman could occupy the position of Brahmā—there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a man might be a Wheel-turning Monarch…that a man might occupy the position of Sakka…that a man might occupy the position of Māra…that a man might occupy the position of Brahmā—there is such a possibility." ~~ MN 115 ~~

Now before some modern-day feminist about to start a massive protest, pay close attention to the next sentence too, basically it said that on the flip side, men's evil has no equal, so much that this gender is the only one capable of occupying the most evil office ever exists, Mara!

Not sure feminists would accept that men only can be top good or top evil - that is just complete patriarchy. The Buddhas description that Buddhas could not arise, in his spacetime, as female, makes sense because women were second class citizens.. They did not have the position to teach all sentient beings - at least half would have had the impulse to rebell. Of course, this is a delineation of a delineation. It's just unlikely, but so long as women have access to figure out anicca, dukkha, and anatta, and can teach, sure. Imo the message was more time sensitive than generally considered.

@IlyaGrushevskiy That topic was asked and has answers here and was also discussed here -- but I don't think that's relevant to this answer or at least not relevant to the OP's question.

@IlyaGrushevskiy, oh I don't know about that. Have you seen any feminist's march protesting the fact that there's yet to be any female leader who caused unimaginable atrocities, the scale of which are on par with Gengis Khan, Hitler, or Pol Pot?

@santa100 But it could be possible or impossible for both to be... But I want to know what is exact concept Female Buddha mean. A person or philosophy.

@santa100 There are many stories I also found this source . https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/himalayan-buddhist-art-101-who-tara/

@Swapnil, well if you want to go by "there are many stories", then there're more "stories" than you'd ever be able to read for your entire life, heck, there're stories about Female Buddha down the corner of your street if you want to hear. So, don't go with what's said in Tricycle, Bicycle, or whatever, go with what's said in the Suttas/Sutras. So, Female Buddha? no, that's not a person nor a philosophy. It's a fantasy.

In the Early Buddhist Texts, some texts have these statements attributed to the Buddha, and some do not. A recent discussion by scholars is occurred here
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/democracy-or-immobilism-in-the-sangha-based-on-ebt/16544/49
Further materials can be found in that forum, and might also be referenced here
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/buddhism-women-gender-a-bibliography/7579
Also of interest is well respected scholarship of Theravada bhikkhu Anālayo
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/bahudhatuka.pdf

Whereas the inability of a woman to be a Buddha can still be seen as an expression of leadership conceptions held in ancient Indian patriarchal society, once her ability to be a Pacceka-buddha becomes part of the listing of impossibilities, the implications are clearly a diminishing of the spiritual abilities of women. This tenden-cy can safely be assumed to stand in contrast to the original teachings of early Buddhism, where—as far as the texts allow us to judge—gender was not considered to have an impact on spiritual abilities.


text:
What are the ways to be conscious in all situations?

Ways to be conscious in all situations
How to do one thing at a time ?

Ways to be conscious in all situations

Just like anything else, to be good at martial arts, at playing the piano, at math, etc... the only way is to practice, practice, and practice. Practice mindfulness meditation diligently and one will be able to have very sharp awareness/mindfulness any time, any place. For a straightforward and practical advise on the what and how, check out Ven. Gunaratana's excellent "Mindfulness in Plain English"

How to do one thing at a time ?

Actually if one's able to be good with step 1 above, whether one does one thing or many things at a time no longer matters. S/he'd have just as much awareness/mindfulness at all time!

You can try to first practise the mindfulness meditation taught by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, including the sitting meditation and the walking meditation. There is the text for this here and the YouTube video playlist here.
After that, you can slowly incorporate it into daily life.
In Chapter Six, he says:

Further, one can apply the same technique to any small movement of the
body – for instance when bending or stretching the limbs, one can note
“bending” or “stretching”. When moving the limbs, “moving”. When
turning, “turning”, and so on. Every activity can become a meditation
practice in this way; when brushing one’s teeth, “brushing”; when
chewing or swallowing food, “chewing, chewing”, “swallowing,
swallowing” and so on.
When cooking, cleaning, exercising, showering, changing clothes, even
on the toilet, one can be mindful of the movements of the body
involved, creating clear awareness of reality at all times. This is
the first method by which one can and should incorporate the
meditation practice directly into ordinary life.

Another teacher who has produced good material on this subject is Thich Nhat Hanh. See "Be Mindful in Daily Life" and "Thich Nhat Hanh on The Practice of Mindfulness".


text:
Pali Canon and Agama
I have a question regarding the early texts the question is : am I right to say that the Pali Canon is exclusively considered the Thervada text, while the Agama is the Mahayana Sutras or am I wrong maybe the Agama is also considered Thervadin. Do Thervadin scholars accept Agama as part of Thervada??.
Thank you I appreciate your answers.

A more useful way of looking at it is to see both the Nikayas and Agamas as Early Buddhist text rendered in different languages (Pali for Nikayas, Sanskrit for Agamas). If you've read Ven. Analayo's work on comparative studies between the two systems, you'll see they are very very similar. Now, Theravada pretty much focuses on the Nikayas as their go-to sutta sources, while Mahayana, due to its vast number of sub-schools or sub-systems, has various focuses depending on the particular school. Some pay more attention to the Agamas, while others more on the later additions (Amitabha collections, Avatamsaka, Lankavatara, Prajnaparamita, etc...).

Thank you for your answer. In the later Mahayana sutras we find statements like emptiness is form , form is emptiness etc which to me seems like a form of idealism or non duality which we dont find in the Pali Canon (I believe). Would you say that the agama teaches non duality aswell?.

Actually "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" is from Prajnaparamita (a later addition), not from Nikayas or Agamas. It's probably a more radical/extreme rendering of the original Nikayas/Agamas of "form is LIKE emptiness, emptiness is LIKE form" (ref: https://suttacentral.net/sn22.95/en/bodhi ).

Thank you alot for your answer.

@santa100 I'd probably add to your answer that not all texts of the Pali Canon are considered EBTs, as far as I've read. Some texts of the Pali Canon seem to be posterior in their rendering, which is inferred from the language, concepts ans style used in them, as well as the references (implicit or explicit) to events, persons, or ideas which should not be known to those who lived around the Buddha's lifetime. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm no expert in the matter.

@BrianDíazFlores, of course nobody claimed that 100% of suttas in the Pali Canon were  100% the Buddha's words. But following up on this exact point of yours, if even for the Pali Canon, one has to be prudent on examining its suttas authenticity, how much more one needs to be careful when it comes to later works like Amitabha, Avatamsaka, Lankaravatara?

I agree. Just in case, I wasn't saying that you claimed something false. I was just pointing to some nuance that I thought could be useful to the OP question.

Here is an excerpt from Ven Sujato, The Pali Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas:

These studies have largely confirmed Beal’s initial hypothesis – the Chinese Ᾱgamas and the Pali Nikāyas are virtually identical in doctrine. They are two varying recensions of the same set of texts. These texts – popularly referred to simply as ‘the Suttas’ – were assembled by the first generations of the Buddha’s followers, before the period of sectarian divisions. They are pre-sectarian Buddhism.
Although in the popular mind these texts are thought of as ‘Theravāda’ teachings, this is not so. Eminent scholar David Kalupahana went so far as to declare that there is not one word in the Pali Nikāyas that represents ideas peculiar to the Theravāda school (although I think this is a slight exaggeration.)

Another example, this answer on this site refers to this scholarly paper -- which analyses two versions of the same sutta (one Pali, one Chinese) -- and finds they are almost identical, with (if I remember rightly) only one line of difference. In fact the paper's authors argue that in this case it's the Chinese version which is probably the more authentic/original.
The bottom line is though that they're often the exact same suttas, albeit in different languages and possibly slightly altered through the ages.
And they're doctrine common to Mahayana and Theravada -- although, I don't know, perhaps someone mentioned on this site that some Mahayana schools tend to study summaries or commentaries (which they call "abhidarmas") of the agamas.

Though apparently (perhaps not surprisingly) the collections are not quite identical, Wikipedia mentions:

Large parts of the Anguttara nikāya and Samyutta nikāya do not occur in the āgama, and several sutras/suttas are dissimilar in content.

Perhaps (I'm not sure -- I haven't studied the agamas) it's more accurate to say that the agamas are a large subset of the Pali Nikayas.

Thank you alot for your answer.

Chade-Meng Tan summarized here from a talk by Bhikkhu Bodhi (audio talk here):

Most of the records of the teachings of early Buddhism were lost with
the demise of Buddhism in India.
Fortunately, 2 lines of transmission
occurred and survived.   The 1st was the Pali Nikayas, which survived
in Sri Lanka via the Theravada school of Buddhism, which thrived
there.  The 2nd was the Agamas, which passed from northern India to
China.
Each of these contains 4 collections, with names carrying
largely identical meanings in Pali and Chinese:

Digha Nikaya (长阿含经), collection of long discourses.
Majjhima Nikaya (中阿含经), collection of middle-length discourses.
Samyutta Nikaya (杂阿含经), collection of themed discourses.
Anguttara Nikaya (增一阿含经), collection of “increase by one” discourses.

The main difference between the Nikayas and Agamas:  All the Nikayas
are from the same school of Buddhism, which is the Theravada school.
In contrast, the Chinese translators chose the collection from a
different school for each Agama.  For example, they chose the
Dharmaguptaka version of the long discourses, the Sarvastivada version
of the middle-length discourses, and so on.   There are some
differences between the nikaya and agama collections.  The order of
the discourses are not always identical.  Also, some discourses that
are assigned to one collection in the nikayas are assigned to another
in the agamas => assignments are not identical.

You may also be interested in the sub-chapter "3.1 Comparative Studies" from the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali.
I quote from it here:

In addition to the full scale study of the Majjhima Nikāya, there have
been multiple smaller studies of various parts of the EBTs. These have
confirmed that all the EBTs share a similar level of agreement to what
we find between the Suttas of the Majjhima Nikāya and its parallels.
Such studies have been carried out for substantial portions of the
Saṁyutta Nikāya/ Saṁyukta Āgamas, and to a lesser extent for the Dīgha
Nikāya.
Caution needs to be exercised, however, regarding the Ekottara Āgama,
which is nominally the collection corresponding to the Pali Aṅguttara
Nikāya. Although it shares some significant structural features with
the Aṅguttara, the content is often very different. The text is highly
erratic and internally inconsistent, possibly being an unfinished
draft. Scholars agree that it includes proto-Mahāyānist additions,
thereby establishing its late date of completion compared to the rest
of the EBTs.
This high degree of correspondence among the EBTs across different
lines of transmission does not exist for any other texts of the vast
Buddhist corpus. Even in the stylistically oldest part of the Khuddaka
Nikāya, suchas the Sutta Nipāta, the Udāna, and the Dhammapada, there
is substantial divergence between the schools. This is despite the
fact that these texts do have a common core, which is found across the
different traditions. With texts such as the Abhidhamma, despite a
small common core, the divergence is even greater. But the vast
majority of Buddhist texts are exclusive to the individual schools and
do not have any parallels at all.

This means that the Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya and Digha Nikaya are largely the same between the Pali suttas and the corresponding Agamas.
The Anguttara Nikaya and Ekottara Agama are not the same as the latter has proto-Mahayanist additions.
Meanwhile, the Kuddhaka Nikaya (Sutta Nipata, Udana, Dhammapada etc.) is very different in the Pali suttas and the corresponding Agamas.


text:
Buddhism Supernatural feats and abilities (Part 2)
Subject refers, this is refer to URL below where question already closed
Buddhism Supernatural feats and abilities
This is some sharing with a question. Hope it will help some science development in finding the truth.
I only experienced 2 or 3 times out of it for the Supernatural feats that feel so real and close as explained for 3rd Eye or so called Quantum Entanglement in Pseudo Science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV7qC7qua1k
I have a long thought about how I did to have this during that time, I have a short temporary state of perfectionist or Buddhism 6 Paramita as below which I believe to have this super ability when a person achieves enlightenment. Or in other words, my mind just had fooled myself, fully focused and believed to have all the below but for a very short moment. For the poker game winning as mentioned in the previous link indeed I had donated all to the temple and I had this thinking while winning the game . I knew what Teacher taught me to use in gambling was wrong.

Dāna pāramitā (दान पारमिता): generosity, giving of oneself (in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, 布施波羅蜜; in Tibetan, སྦྱིན་པ sbyin-pa)
Śīla pāramitā (शील पारमिता): virtue, morality, discipline, proper conduct (持戒波羅蜜; ཚུལ་ཁྲིམས tshul-khrims)
Kṣānti pāramitā (क्षांति पारमिता): patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance (忍辱波羅蜜; བཟོད་པ bzod-pa)
Vīrya pāramitā (वीर्य पारमिता): energy, diligence, vigor, effort (精進波羅蜜; བརྩོན་འགྲུས brtson-’grus)
Dhyāna pāramitā (ध्यान पारमिता): one-pointed concentration, contemplation (禪定波羅蜜, བསམ་གཏན bsam-gtan)
Prajñā pāramitā (प्रज्ञा पारमिता): wisdom, insight (般若波羅蜜; ཤེས་རབ shes-rab)
Ques: Please someone validate the technique above can have some temporary Supernatural feats or Quantum Entanglement. If yes, then experience can be done during a Poker game for a person like Doctor Stuart Hameroff or whatever to simulate the scenario.

Well, I wish to go back to the human world and focus on the Noble Eightfold Path instead of the phenomena and let the Doctor handle this quantum world. If the information above is valid and the Doctor has faith, then he will find it.

Is this a blog post? Part 2 ???

The question appears to be, "Is it possible to have temporary Supernatural feats or Quantum Entanglement, which manifest as winning a poker game, especially when acting altruistically e.g. with the intention of giving winnings to the temple." I don't know  how (i.e. based on what) this question is meant to be answered, though.

I think the OP should edit the text or question to make this a valid one. ChrisW inferred a question from the text, but I think it'd better if the OP makes the question explicit.

Poker is not pure gambling, but what gambling poker has is unskillful:

DN31:11.2: Victory breeds enmity. The loser mourns their money. There is immediate loss of wealth. A gambler’s word carries no weight in public assembly. Friends and colleagues treat them with contempt. And no-one wants to marry a gambler, for they think: ‘This individual is a gambler—they’re not able to support a partner.’

Beyond gambling, poker incorporates some measure of proficiency in "reading tells". Unfortunately, poker also involves deceit and strategies such as "all in" for betting, which is definitely unskillful for a Buddhist perspective.

MN117:29.1: And what is wrong livelihood? Deceit, flattery, hinting, and belittling, and using material possessions to pursue other material possessions.

Please reconsider your livelihood here, especially if you donate gains. Such gains can only be purified by the recipient, not the giver.

AN4.78:3.1: And how is a religious donation purified by the recipient, not the giver?  It’s when the giver is unethical, of bad character, but the recipient is ethical, of good character.

Practice the Noble Eightfold Path to benefit yourself before you seek to benefit others.

AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.
AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.
AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.
AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

In the above, "practice" is right practice according to the Noble Eightfold Path.


text:
If Buddhas don't feel bliss, what is the purpose of attaining nirvana?
If I have zero feelings won't I be a dead robot? And how would I have love and compassion for beings without feeling?

Nibbana is the end of suffering. That is the need that most practitioners seek to meet. But the attainment of nibbana also meets another need: The need to see things as they actually are. Nibbana cures the mind of the "learning disability" which is the search for bliss. Seekers of bliss are seeking a coping mechanism for suffering. This is unskillful. If you eliminate suffering, the need for a coping mechanism disappears.

From AN 9.34:

Ven: Sariputta: “Reverends, extinguishment (Nibbana) is bliss!
Ven. Udayi: “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since
nothing is felt?”
Ven. Sariputta: “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s
blissful about it.

Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced when encountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses, including thoughts and the intellect) or when encountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses).
But for a Buddha or arahat, sukha or bliss (in this context) is experienced when encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana.
Please see this answer for commentaries by Nyanaponika Thera. The supporting suttas are MN 44, SN 36.5 and AN 9.34.
In addition, the Buddha and arahats can experience emotions or states of mind which are not tainted with the three poisons of greed (lobha), aversion (dosa) and delusion (moha). This includes the four brahmaviharas of loving kindness (metta), compassion (karuna), empathetic joy (mudita) and equanimity (upekkha).
The brahmaviharas are considered skillful states of mind.
An enlightened person is not an emotionless person. It's simply a person who does not have cravings, does not have plans to fulfill sensual cravings, does not have plans to become something and does not become afflicted with negative states of mind that arise as a side effect of having craving. Also please see this question.
The purpose of Nirvana is permanently ending suffering - it's not about experiencing bliss.

Adding on based on a comment by Ruslan, the Buddha did have his five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness) intact and functioning without being tainted by the three poisons, after attaining Nibbana, and could still experience pain and pleasure, but did not suffer from it. Please see this answer for details.

Iti2.17; "Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left."

@Ruslan Yes. You are right.

@Ruslan I added an additional note, pointing to another answer that tells the same.

Being enlightened as ''having love and compassion'' is from the people who cling to the dichotomy hate-love. They heard that Being enlightened means having no hate, so they think that Being enlightened means being full of love.
More generally this stems from their lack of understanding that four Brahma Vihara or four sublime states [ metta (loving kindness), karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy), and upekkha (equanimity) ] is not being enlightened.
It is the jains and hindus who keep saying that having compassion means '' consider their suffering as your own is general-compassion.''
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/anukampa
So the buddha has anukampa, ie compassion, and he says he teaches out of anukampa. The buddha did not get enlightened because he wanted to be full of love and be compassionate. THe buddha wanted to end dukkha and the result is the ending of dukkha and he teaches out of anukampa.
Even Ananda says he answers the nuns out of anukampa.
The usual paragraph with anukampa is like this https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.152.than.html

"So, Ananda, I have taught you the unexcelled development of the
faculties in the discipline of a noble one; I have taught you how one
is a person in training, someone following the way; I have taught you
how one is a noble one with developed faculties. 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, Ananda. Don't be
heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you
all."

Mn152 also explains how enlightened people view feelings, tactile sensations and so on.
Nibanna is bliss, but not bliss with the senses, not even the bliss from the jhana. It is the other kind of bliss and you can't know it before being enlightened.

In the context of this question, eg there are differing types of concepts described by the same English words, many of the exact concepts nothaving exact English equivalents.
Nonattached kindliness & nonattached compassion, & lovingkindness are sometimes utilised more at more existential concepts and existential nuances.
Many books talk about the subject of this question, and many words written about it, however, sometimes the concept seems oversimplified because of the words. Readers often infer, and very reasonably so, the fairly standard definitions for the words, when in fact there may be specialised meanings intended to be implied.
Some 'concepts', eg some existential concepts arent'very easily described using fairly standard English words. Yet many contributions to understanding of the concepts may be assisted by descriptions of features of the concepts for which there are more well known English word equivalents, and an example of that might include the subject of the question:
One aspect of Enlightenment is that there's lack of illusion, & there 'is' Reality, & there isn't confusion or illusion or cloudiness or dukkha. There isn't illusion or cloudiness. Things are 'seen' correctly & as they really 'are', & Kindliness & compassion & niceness are without attachment! And kindliness & compassion & niceness are for benefit to other beings rather than for personal, or to go to a heaven, etc

Why ask why?
Just be compassionate and understand that people have created their own worlds, from past lives, and that they are born with mental projections as part of the karma they need to work through.  Try not to get pulled into bullshit when other people are chasing their own tails around, in a ball of confusion.  In other words, if people refuse to listen to your calm purity, don't chase them down and try to force wisdom down their throats.  They'll spit it out.
Love all sentient beings, but also your self.  Be kind to others, but also to your self.
But I realize I have not answered your specific question.  The purpose of attaining nirvana--Is this a serious question?  All people must achieve it.  It is the purpose of living.  No one is excluded from this goal of self-purification.

Why must everyone achieve Nirvana? How do you arrive to the conclusion that Nirvana is the purpose of living? I think that 'must' and 'can' are two different things: one might say that everyone can achieve Nirvana, but how do we jump from that to "all people must achieve Nirvana? Does the universe have a purpose? If your answer is "yes", how do you know?

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this: no-one knows.
You can only read the metaphors about extinguished lamps etc. to get it.
See Collins' Nirvana: it is an excellent piece of scholarship -- from a Theravadin perspective.


text:
The Four Great References (AN 4.180)
This question refers to The Four Great References in  Mahāpadesa Sutta (AN 4.180).
In each case, it ends with:

If they’re not included in the discourses and not found in the texts on
monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is
not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened
Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by ...
If they are included in the discourses and found in the texts on
monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is
the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened
Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by ...

So, why are there four great references and not one, if the criteria is the same for each of them?
What is the difference between the four great references?
Do they represent primacy or order of reliability? For e.g. is the first great reference more reliable than the second great reference?, is the second more reliable than the third? etc.
If the answer to the previous question is Yes, then does this imply that the traditional commentaries to the suttas by the Sangha is more reliable than the interpretation of a single monk, as suggested by this comment?

This translation (of DN 16) includes this footnote:

In the earlier edition of this work, mahapadesa was rendered as "great authorities." It is now known that the proper meaning of apadesa is not "authority," but "reference" or "source." Besides, from the passage it is clear that there are only two real "authorities" — the Discourses (Suttas) and the Discipline (Vinaya).

The "four" are of course,

Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak:

'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation';
or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation';
or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation';
or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

So, why are there four great references and not one, if the criteria is the same for each of them?
Because they're four different sources from which someone might say they heard something?
Do they represent primacy or order of reliability?
No I read it as explicitly the opposite.
I think the message is that the witness or narrator (IOW any bikkhu after the Buddha's passing) shouldn't be believed unreservedly -- the message might have "been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder" -- so no matter what source they claim you should measure what they say against the Dhamma and the Discipline, the suttas and the vinaya.
then does this imply that the traditional commentaries to the suttas by the Sangha is more reliable than the interpretation of a single monk
Ha, well I think it's your responsibility to decide for yourself.
On the other hand you're not supposed to split the Sangha, and I think that if a lot of experts seem to disagree with my view then it's likely that I'm missing something -- it's not as if other people's commentaries and so on aren't worthwhile.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that you might not want to trust any one person (even a monk) unreservedly, perhaps especially if what they're teaching is unorthodox.
Even so I think that reasonable people might have different approaches -- this Religious Conservatism discussion starts with,

We need to be clear about what we mean by “a conservative/traditionalist perspective”. For some monasteries it means following the tradition as it has been handed down by their teachers. For others it is about trying to get as close to the intentions of the Buddha as possible. The Ajahn Chah monasteries in the UK - where, incidentally, I have lived - are closer to the former, whereas monasteries such as Bodhinyana are closer to the latter.


text:
Is there any Buddhist society / group / organisation in Mumbai, India? Where we can meet similar like minded people, attend cultural events
I am looking for some kind of Buddhist society/group/organization in Mumbai, India, where we can meet similar like-minded people, attend cultural events, discuss/talk/teachings (dharma talk) on Buddhist ideas/concepts, etc. I am looking for Theravada Buddhism & not neo-Buddhism. Any kind of help is highly appreciated.
I know there's COVID situation going on but I just need to know if there's any, will attend when the situation becomes normal.

There are 9 listed here -- that search is filtering on "Mumbai" and "Theravada".

I just searched on Google and found the Global Vipassana Pagoda, Gorai, North-west of Mumbai.
This is their website: https://www.globalpagoda.org/
This is obviously a Buddhist organization associated with S.N. Goenka. It's his Vipassana movement, teaching Vipassana meditation based on the teachings of Sayagyi U Ba Khin.
Therefore, it's Theravada.

That's for meditation, which I do on a daily basis. And its 10-day course is hard to get short-listed & me being the only earning of the family I can't afford it either way.

@VarunKrish Please see the question Is it fine to learn Vipassana meditation online?, especially the answer by Ven. Yuttadhammo.


text:
Mental illness and the Layperson's Practice
I would like to return to the practice of Buddhism.  Where should I begin?
I have a serious mental illness.  It has been well treated by medication.
When I was young, before I developed this illness I would practice meditation as best I could.
But I had no mentor and so I don't know if my practice was correct.  I do not come from a Buddhist culture so I know little about the subject other than what I have been able to read.
Will my medication interfere with meditation as it is obviously mind altering?
Should I start for example with meditation on impermanence, on mindfulness, or by attempting to reduce my desire?

Welcome. I wonder whether someone could answer this if you asked it on https://discourse.suttacentral.net/

Thank you @ChrisW I will try that.  My main fear is not that I could make my condition worse, but more that I may be practising incorrectly and reaching states (of mind) that are unhelpful.  It might even be that I cannot perform some meditation correctly because of my medication, but stopping the medicine is not really an option.

I feel I have some understanding of what you're saying, I was close to someone who maybe had similar experience, and for whom medication was effective (I won't be one telling you to stop medicine). Your question is a bit specialised (outside most people's experience). and IMO I haven't previously seen it answered really well on this site. Perhaps someone needs extensive or specialised experience as a teacher to answer it from experience, hence my suggestion you could try asking on SuttaCentral; and/or ask, "If you can't answer, do you know where/how/who else I could ask who might know better"?

A while ago, i wrote this as an answer to a similar question. I suspect you are struggling with something a bit different than the poster from that previous question, but i hope that answer can shed some light regarding the mind-altering aspect.
I don't know how your particular medication is expected to work, but giving some thought on whether you'd have an easier/harder time meditating without your medication would probably give you a clue (I am not arguing for/against using medicine here).
Provided your healthcare givers aren't giving you the red light for meditation, the choice of meditation subject is likely no different than for anyone else starting up. You can never go wrong with anapanasati. If you have the time and energy, here is a good introduction text:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyadhamma/bl115.html

Thank you for your answer.  Yes it is very different, delusions and hallucinations are the main symptoms.  It was not possible to calm the mind in this state.  I have continued with meditation on breath throughout my illness though as a part of my martial arts training.

@HuwEvans Glad to read that you're able to keep your symptoms in check. It seems to me like you're already an experienced practitioner!

I have some experience but only in the a few aspects...  The martial art (japanese shorinji kempo) teaches a rather radical form of Buddhism.  I feel that it's teachings would probably not be considered correct or helpful to the majority of Buddhists.  Teaching yourself to not suffer when you are in pain is a big part of it.

Please check with your doctor on whether you could attempt any meditation while on treatment. Answers that you get from this site does not substitute or supersede professional medical advice.
Firstly, you should try to observe the five precepts. This is the foundation to virtue, and to all other practices.
Secondly, you can try "A Guided Meditation" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
It has basic meditation steps, where it starts with loving kindness (metta), then it goes to mindfulness of breathing, then body scanning and finally ends with loving kindness (metta) again.
It's relatively simple, and it's also useful for building your foundation in meditation, as he explained:

If you can keep the mind centered in this way, you'll have a standard
against which you can measure its movements, its reactions to the
events around it and within it. Only when you have a solid center like
this can you gain insight into the movements of the mind.

Thanks, I understand your concern but western medicine does not have much to say about meditation. Mindfulness meditation is actually offered in some form by the medical service though.

@HuwEvans Please also see this answer. There's a lot of info there about medicine and meditation. The main ones are Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT). There is a TEDx Talk video by Dr. Zindel Segal, which explains MBCT and provides research evidence. But I'm not sure if MBSR and MBCT are suited to your particular condition.

I had heard of that research, but so far as I know there just isn't any evidence either way other than that research.  Those studies were very recent and my condition is very different to the ones studied.  I have mentioned it to my doctor in any case.  Her answer was basically 'I dont' know'.  The impression I get is that psychiatry is still in it's infancy.  The medication I am on was only discovered in my lifetime.

@HuwEvans MBCT was developed as depression relapse prevention, and is therefore geared towards increasing awareness of the onset of early symptoms. I feel hesitant that symptom awareness is always advisable for other conditions besides depression, and i agree that more research would be interesting! Going back to your original question, meditation practice can of course have other purposes than a strictly clinical application.

@Erik Yes, I'm not looking for a clinical application.  I just want to practice (meditation and wholesome living) correctly.

@HuwEvans Yes I think psychiatry is a bit primitive, I gather it's "try something, if that doesn't work then try something else" (not that a lot of medicine isn't like that), that plus trying to minimise harmful side-effects. I think you're right though, in my experience (in a Western country like yours) a psychiatrist (who prescribes medication) knows about recognising mental disorders and which medicines might be effective, and their physical side-effects, perhaps social issues and resources too (patients interacting with society), but not about meditation (especially, explicitly Buddhist).

@ChrisW Indeed, it's a very new science but credit where credit it due: they are good at getting people functioning in society.  Functioning in society is a long way though from following the 8 fold path.

This doesn't answer your question ... but perhaps what you're asking might be independent of "mental illness", in which case advice for you -- about "following the 8 fold path" -- might be the same for you as for everyone.
I'm not sure whether (or which) "mental illness" is an issue at the moment, given that you say it is well treated by medication -- from your writing here you seem to me lucid and obviously not very disabled.
If you were anxious about meditation, possibly like this would be relevant -- Three Tips on Mindfulness from a Buddhist Psychiatrist:

For those with anxiety especially, the idea of being alone with one’s thoughts can be overwhelming at first. Epstein does not recommend that one buckle down and push through such moments. Rather, he relates a story of discussing meditation induced anxiety with the Dalai Lama’s physician to find that Buddhism was quite familiar with the phenomenon. For those who find meditation to be suffused with dread,

“Tibetan doctors have such afflicted patients do simple tasks like sweeping the temple halls or chopping vegetables in the kitchen rather than prescribing more meditation. They know that they treatment for meditation-induced anxiety disorders is less meditation, not more.”

If the idea of meditating just seems like too much, bring the same focused attention to bear on doing your household activities, and in the process you will find your mind settling down to rest.

I'm not saying you are anxious, only that this seems to me an example of the sort of adaptable advice -- adjusting to your specific condition -- that you might benefit from if you were able to find an experienced teacher.

As for "practising incorrectly and reaching states (of mind) that are unhelpful", again I don't know what to say, not that I'm an expert.
This might be a good question (that I still wouldn't know how to answer) even as a stand-alone question i.e. if it were asked decoupled/independent from any question of prior/preconceived mental illness.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect that Buddhism doesn't even start with meditation.
So far I know I think it's said to start with "virtue" (see e.g. here or here) -- including being mindful of "the precepts" as perhaps a minimum or a good beginning, and a certain but not excessive "generosity" (or dana) too -- being harmless, moderate, self-restrained.
And perhaps Right View is maybe supposed to be primary, and I think that that might start not with meditation but by learning dhamma -- reading suttas, hearing dhamma talks.
In earlier times that would necessarily have meant meeting with people (Kalyāṇa-mittatā).

Should I start for example with meditation on impermanence, on mindfulness, or by attempting to reduce my desire?
For me it was a question like, "Why would I be suffering after a friend's death?" -- that kind of touches on those themes, e.g. "impermanence" and "desire" -- and "attachment", which is adjacent to desire, and the sense of "self" which is said to be another cause of suffering.
I haven't read that's one of the classic forms of meditation, but it (death) is one of the classic forms of suffering and incentive for many people.
Off the top of my head some of the classic forms of meditation are:

Learn to concentrate (on the focus of meditation)
Learn peace or to relax (by letting go)
Learn to observe (the senses are impermanent)
Learn not to lust (by concentrating on disadvantages and by not dwelling on the sign of what's attractive)
Learn to be kind and not angry or selfish (by rehearsing to view everyone as a friend)
And many more -- Dzogchen, maybe "just sitting, and this rather remarkable practice (all from different schools)

This is sometimes summarised as there being two forms, i.e. Tranquillity and Insight, of which you eventually need both
I really couldn't tell you how you should start.
Maybe the question is more how you should stop -- Brahmana Sutta -- perhaps that's not the right question either.
This might help -- Four stages of enlightenment -- a partial summary of doctrine of one of the major schools (Theravada). I mention it because you were asking about "reaching states (of mind) that are unhelpful", this article might give a hint or road-map about what states of mind are considered relatively enlightened.
Even then I'm not sure, there's an aspect of this or risk that it might be a bit selfish or anti-social, solitary.
I think the unhelpful states of mind might be what are called Kleshas.

When I meditate, I go through different states of mind that I can't easily describe.  They dont' resemble the Klesha's or a stage of enlightenment as I have ever seen them described.  They are more different levels of 'focus', 'awareness' and 'concentration'.  I don't know if any of them are one's I should aim to prolong or if I should dismiss them all.

Perhaps I need to find a mentor?

Perhaps, eh? I (for example) studied a "martial art" too for a while: and that would be inconceivable without a mentor. I expect a lot of learning (skills?) needs a mentor (except technologies for which it may be enough to RTFM if you're inclined). I for one though don't know how to help with "different states of mind that I can't easily describe" -- I am not a meditation teacher. Different states are impermanent, perhaps it's their cessation that's unceasing -- though people do reason about states -- I suppose that ...

... "Abandon the unskillful, develop the skillful" depends on having some ability to recognise (or to learn) what's skilful. I wish I could explain it in a sentence, apparently "Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet" though, a.k.a.  "I wish I could have given him this beautiful moon."


text:
Can a person choose to reincarnate as a human instead of a god?
Out of all six kinds of existence, only humans can achieve nirvana. It occurred to me that someone who has accumulated too much good karma in this life without managing to achieve nirvana might get reborn in the gods (deva) realm and waste a very long time having fun without working towards nirvana.
So could a person refuse reincarnation in the gods realm?

Yes. But it requires proper attention. Since you mention "fun", let's first look at pleasant rebirths:

DN33:1.10.94: Three kinds of pleasant rebirth.
DN33:1.10.95: There are sentient beings who, having repeatedly given rise to it, dwell in pleasure. Namely, the gods of Brahmā’s Host. This is the first pleasant rebirth. There are sentient beings who are drenched, steeped, filled, and soaked with pleasure.  Every so often they feel inspired to exclaim:  ‘Oh, what bliss! Oh, what bliss!’ Namely, the gods of streaming radiance. This is the second pleasant rebirth. There are sentient beings who are drenched, steeped, filled, and soaked with pleasure.  Since they’re truly content, they experience pleasure. Namely, the gods replete with glory.

In the same sutta, Sariputta explains that ethics and view affect rebirth:

DN33:2.1.35: It is because of endowment with ethics or view that sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.

Ethics affect the quality of rebirth (e.g. good place or bad place). However it is view that most affects rebirth itself. In particular, we have to examine our view, since a vital condition for rebirth is a view conditioned with continued existence and grasping:

SN12.23:4.6: I say that rebirth has a vital condition.  And what is it? You should say: ‘Continued existence.’ I say that continued existence has a vital condition.  And what is it? You should say: ‘Grasping.’

Meditation allows us to change our conditioning. It allows us to let go. So if we are ethical and meditate well, we might see and experience the wisdom of non-return and beyond.

DN33:3.1.105: The heart’s wish of an ethical person succeeds because of their purity.

A person shouldn't worry about "too much good kamma" or coming back as a human. A good person with much good kamma should consider why they wish to come back at all.

MN1:171.4: Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,

From Awareness Itself by Ajaan Fuang Jotiko, compiled by his disciple Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

A group of laypeople who had studied the Abhidhamma together came to
Ajaan Fuang to try out his version of mental training, but when he
told them to sit, close their eyes, and focus on the breath, they
immediately backed off, saying that they didn't want to practice
concentration, for fear that they'd get stuck on jhana and end up
being reborn in the Brahma worlds. He responded, "What's there to be
afraid of? Even non-returners are reborn in the Brahma worlds. At any
rate, being reborn in the Brahma worlds is better than being reborn as
a dog."

Can a person choose to reincarnate as a human instead of a god?

Well, if by "choosing" you mean one can pick and choose out of 2 choices given to you, then no. But if "choosing" means to cultivate the Dhamma in both merits-making and wisdom, one can affect/influence the future course of one's rebirths, then yes, definitely. Most of the cases when one's acquired tremendous worldly merits either here on earth or up in the heavens was because they solely focus on the merit-making part, while paying little to no attention to the cultivation of Sila/Samadhi/Panna.