text:
When it comes to commercial products, is there harm to choosing a more beautiful and well-designed option?
I am new to buddhism and this is my first question here. I hope I can provide something of value and that I am clear in my phrasing.
So I have recently started learning about the teachings of the buddha, principally through the book The Basic Teachings of the Buddha by Glenn Wallis. I have decided that there is value to the practice but have not figured out to what extent I want to apply it, but I'm leaning towards not becoming a monastic, instead continuing on my current path but with a buddhist mindset.
Today, I decided to buy a tea kettle. This might sound ridiculous as a jumping off point but it made me consider my attraction to certain products rather than others. I really want a kettle that is well designed aesthetically and that has more advanced functions like temperature control, but it feels like this is a form of grasping of sensory pleasure. Both for the aesthetic appeal of the design itself and for the flavour of the tea it will be used to brew.
At the same time I believe that beauty, and minimalism in particular, are worthwhile in some regard. I do not want to become an ascetic (I seem to be joined by the majority of buddhist practitioners in this), but ascetiscism seems like the logical conclusion which the denial of the value of beauty leads to.
So what does my desire for a nice kettle say about me as a buddhist, and is it compatible with buddhas teachings?
Edit: Thank you all for your thoughtful answers! I am hesitant to pick one answer as these types of questions rarely have a definitive one, but I'll accept the highest voted one to make the question answered.

When we start browsing through the teachings, after a while, we start to become a little self-conscious about things. Given some time, this self-consciousness will become wise introspection, but not about objects, more about the human mind and the nature of consciousness. It's quite common to start with dense objects, then filter down into subtler forms of inquiry.

That kettle example tells me you admire a certain attitude to life, an attitude of doing things right, properly, with attention to fulfilling the essential function and not having undesired side-effects.
Extrapolating that a bit further, you probably have a tendency to seek the main point of ideas, you're not satisfied with the superficial - you want to get to the gist of things, what Buddha called "the heartwood". This must apply to you studying Buddhism, you want to know exactly what's its point.
That's good. Buddha himself was like that, and he was a big fan of things done well.
If you follow this intuition and apply it to the context of "not creating suffering in your life" you will understand the gist of Buddha's Teaching, from everyday ethics to jhana to prajna-paramita.
There's no harm in being a connoisseur of fine things or an idealist or a perfectionist, per-se. The harm comes from putting it above everything else and despising people of simpler bent. That's when being a "good" perfectionist could mutate into being a high-class demon (an "asura").
Immature perfectionists tend to be simplistic in their application. They may optimize one thing at the expense of others. They can be very inconsistent. Serious, mature perfectionists apply the same attitude (of seeking the ever-refined essence and paying attention to side-effects) to themselves, to their own process of acting and thinking. That's how it becomes the real Path that goes all the way to Enlightenment.

I agree fully with this answer but, since I sense that we share some common traits, I'd like to suggest 2 potential issues which you may encounter as I did with this behavior. I, too, often analyze and try to find the 'best' and have these as personal problems. 1) This approach to choosing might lead to greater attachment to the items you obtain than might be helpful. 2) The time spent in analysis might be better used in other activities which move you closer to enlightenment and away from the physical world's things. Things to think about. Best, Jim

OP: "This might sound ridiculous as a jumping off point but it made me
consider my attraction to certain products rather than others."

Actually, it is a remarkably astute jumping off point.

OP: "I really want a kettle that is well designed aesthetically and
that has more advanced functions like temperature control, but it
feels like this is a form of grasping of sensory pleasure."

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to have a "nice kettle" that fulfills its function and is also beautiful to you. The problem arises if you believe there is any such thing as an objectively existing "nice kettle." If you look carefully at your mind as it perceives and conceptualizes this "nice kettle" you'll find that it is an illusion based upon your own predilections and habits. That "nice kettle" says more about your mind and karma than any actually existing "nice kettle" out in the world.
It is like the story of the God, the Human and the Hungry ghost all arguing over a cup of liquid. The God tastes it and declares that it is the nectar of the gods. The Human tastes it and observes that is just clean water. The Hungry ghost tastes it and perceives blood and pus. None of them is objectively right, but each of them is subjectively right. There is nothing about that cup of liquid that makes it ambrosia, or water, or blood and pus.
The same is true for your "nice kettle." So, observe your mind and how it is conjuring the "nice" and superimposing this. If you do and penetrate deeply the illusion will start to lose its enchantment letting you just buy your "nice kettle" without getting wrapped up in craving for it.

Nice tea kettles are indeed beautiful. Yet beauty and love alone do not quite span the scope of the heart.

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

Focusing only on the beautiful bypasses the ugly. There will always be ugly tea kettles. And what shall we do when our beautiful tea kettle gets banged up, scratched and tarnished? What shall we do if we see a more beautiful tea kettle? So much diversity of form! Augggh!
Although beauty is indeed the third liberation...

DN15:35.7: They’re focused only on beauty.
DN15:35.8: This is the third liberation.

...it is followed by the fourth liberation:

DN15:35.9: Going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, they enter and remain in the dimension of infinite space.
DN15:35.10: This is the fourth liberation.

What is this fourth liberation? What is this "space is infinite?"
It is the heart's release by compassion. Instead of turning away from ugliness, we integrate that perception of ugliness into our perception of beauty. And within this infinitely spacious embrace we find peace and harmony with all manner of tea kettles. We brew and welcome tea no matter what tea kettle makes it.

SN46.54:13.7: The apex of the heart’s release by compassion is the dimension of infinite space, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

There are four more liberations. Welcome to Buddhism!

Such an amazing answer!

These are interesting texts you have used for your answer. Thank you for the further reading!

I don't know your background but I think it is a big misunderstanding many people brought up in western worldview (like me) have, that you are not allowed to X.
I think an important part here is the Middle Way. It is perfectly fine to choose the kettle you like as long as you see a difference. Buddhist practice will ultimately lead to not seeing a difference (in value) anymore.
Just imagine a friend has two candies of the same kind. They are equally big. He holds both hands in front of you one candy in each hand and you are to choose one. You will most likely just take any one of them. How did you choose? You really felt they are the same thing, didn't you?
Why are there rules for Monks then?
This is a summary probably someone with better knowledge of the scriptures will have a more accurate explaination.
Suppose you are trying to learn an art or a craft. You start as apprentice of a master in the field and just mimic whatever your master does. Do you know why you are doing it this way? In the beginning probably not. But with time you will see how doing it the same way your master does it leads to the desired outcome. "Ah now I see that X will lead to Y"
Counterintuitive living the homeless life is a luxury. Although it is open to anybody only people that have/feel no responsibility to certain people or things in this life feel free to choose it.

At a minimum, lay followers are meant to undertake the training of the five precepts, and observe Right Livelihood for lay persons.
However, if they decide to observe the practice of Uposatha (usually at full moon and new moon days), which is optional for lay persons, then they must observe the eight precepts which includes temporary abstention from luxuries for the period of Uposatha.
The five precepts:

I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.
I undertake the precept to refrain from false speech.
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
AN 5.177

There's nothing wrong in a lay person enjoying his own wealth including buying and using a "nice kettle". This includes spending for own self, one's family members and friends.
He is however recommended to contribute to charity. Please see this answer to understand altruism and charity in Buddhism.
In the following sutta quotes, the Buddha says for a lay person:

one quarter of one's income should be enjoyed
don't be a spend thrift and don't be a penny pincher
be debtless
save one quarter of one's income for future misfortunes
invest two parts of one's income
be charitable

Of course, for a person seeking full enlightenment, becoming a monk and forgoing luxuries become mandatory. That's a different story.

The wise endowed with virtue
Shine forth like a burning fire,
Gathering wealth as bees do honey
And heaping it up like an ant hill.
Once wealth is accumulated,
Family and household life may follow.
By dividing wealth into four parts,
True friendships are bound;
One part should be enjoyed;
Two parts invested in business;
And the fourth set aside
Against future misfortunes."
DN 31

"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
my outflow will not exceed my income.'
AN 8.54

Knowing the bliss of debtlessness,
& recollecting the bliss of having,
enjoying the bliss of wealth,
the mortal then sees clearly with discernment.
Seeing clearly — the wise one —
he knows both sides:
that these are not worth one sixteenth-sixteenth
of the bliss of blamelessness.
AN 4.62

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing,
they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of
selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite,
their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if
there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not
know, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without
having given. The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds."
Iti 26

"The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and
undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set
infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth, then hold no opinions for, or against,
anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the
mind.
When the deep meaning of things is not understood, the mind's
essential peace is disturbed to no avail."
-The Hsinhsinming (verses on Faith In Mind), attributed to Third Chinese Zen Patriarch Jianzhi Sengcan

We can take this as characteristic of the strongest kind of challenge to our moving through life by choosing what we like or dislike, by using desire and aversion. It is fundamental to Buddhist practice, to go beyond such a way of engaging with the world.
Does that mean choosing what we don't like to 'spite ourselves'? That is as problematic as choosing what we like. The task is to go beyond this, and the effect of desire & aversion on the mind.
I can't help but think of a non-Buddhist poem, by Rilke, which I think puts a very good response:

"So many live on and want nothing, and are raised to the rank of
prince by the slippery ease of their light judgments.
But what you love to see are faces that do work and feel thirst.
You love most of all those who need you as they need a crowbar or a
hoe."
-from The Book Of Hours

Aesthetics of a kettle are part of it's use. In a tea ceremony, widely given in China as tribute for patrons of monasteries, tea ware is very carefully selected. In Japan tea ceremony is entirely associated with Zen, and aims to make manifest the three marks of existence: impermanence, no unchanging identities, and intrinsic-unsatisfactoriness. This is through ideas like wabi-sabi ('rustic beauty'), ichi-go ichi-e ('this meeting is for one time only') and kin-kei-sei-jaku (humble reverence; a respect for the food and drink; purity of both body and spirit; and calmness regarding desire).
So with something as simple as sharing a cup of tea, we can practice the whole of Buddhism. Ikkyu Sojun said "the Buddha dharma is also in the Way of Tea", and his student Murata Juko is said to have realised awakening through it.
It's not that each cup of tea has to be an earth-shaking revelation. Zen Master Dogen wrote about the relation of ordinary activity and awakening in his fascicle Tea and Rice. He even taught his monks how to go to the toilet mindfully, so it is not about the elevation of tea. Buddhism is non-dualist, there is not an ordinary world and an enlightenment world, they are the same. It is about awakening to what was there all along.

I find the concepts explored in Zen fascinating. Thank you for this perspective!

As a householder one uses money and it is said in the vinaya that sensuality is then allowable.
It also forbids monks

Not to affirm that things such as sexual pleasures are not an obstacle to the development of ariyā stage or to jhāna realisations, nor to rebirth in the deva world, when the Buddha explains that these things are precisely an obstacle to those, and not to maintain erroneous views.

I don't liken buying a kettle to sexual intercourse but if it is something one experiences a desire for due to it being pleasing then it is on a spectrum where one gives attention to the theme of beautiful in regards to form & sensuality.
Householders are generally taught to sometimes uphold extraordinary discipline & perdiodically seclude themselves from unwholesome states.
Eventually they will incline to seclusion, will want to train not permitting sensuality and abandoning it altogether.
In as far as sensuality goes one should guard the senses but also stay comfortable. Therefore moderation is good and if one is inclined to seeing danger in small transgressions then one will want to be a monk quickly.

I am recently joined and my response as follows.
Buddhism is   self realization  of the truth of Life.  Meaning of Buddha is Truth and Dhamma is existence or life.
Buddha Dhamma is Truth of Life.
Buddhism is mechanism to the Truth.
Once you are in the right path what you experience in the material world does not make an impact in day to day life.
You need to select best for you to continue this Life with required standard. This standard is varying from person to person. So if it is your preference to select best available as per per your norms, there is nothing wrong in that practice according to Buddha teaching. Good luck


text:
What is the difference between Theravada "papanca" with regard to objects and Mahayana "selflessness of phenomena"?
In a previous question I asked whether the Theravada posits the selflessness of phenomena?
Where the best answer I understood to essentially state that it does not. At least, it did sound like there was an important difference between the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena. That is, Theravada regards the self of persons as not truly existent while the self of phenomena may or may not be. Further, the latter is not deemed an important question. This is not in agreement with the Mahayana madhyamaka schools AFAIK who I think near uniformly disagree.

In my opinion, the Theravada view according to the Pali suttas imply
that:

The self (of persons) is not truly existent.

Whether non-self phenomena are truly existent from its own side or
not, is (probably) not important towards the path to the end of
suffering. (See the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, Parable of the
Simsapa Leaves and the Discourse on the Unconjecturables)

However, in a comment to this recent answer it was asserted by the same that 'papanca' of objects is essentially equivalent to what the Mahayana schools call the selflessness of persons. I'm confused as this seems to be in tension with the previous. What is the solution or is it just my misunderstanding?
Is there any crucial difference between the emptiness of persons and emptiness of objects where the former is to be regarded as definitely non-truly existent while the latter question is not important? Is there some Pali suttas which will illustrate this difference in emptiness between the two selves? Is the 'papanca' of the self of persons different from the 'papanca' of the self of phenomena? What am I missing?
Isn't it the case that SN 22.95 is talking about this 'papanca' of phenomena? Doesn't it compare it to an illusion? If so, then on what basis is it concluded that whether phenomena are truly existent is immaterial in Theravada?

As i understand it papanca refers to the activity of applying mind to some object and then exploring whatever is related to the theme of the object by association, so it's kind of like thinking about one thing and leaping on to the next thing associated with the former, there is a continuation where one is ie reminded of something and dwells reminiscing the memories. One makes more of what is similar, like having 'pa' one gets 'pan' and there activity is papancazing.

I don't know the etymology but pañca means five

@Letsbuddhism PTS dictionary says -- (in its P. meaning uncertain whether identical with Sk. prapañca (pra+pañc to spread out; meaning “expansion, diffuseness, manifoldedness”; cp. papañceti & papañca 3) more likely, as suggested by etym. & meaning of Lat. im-ped-iment-um, connected with pada, thus perhaps originally “pa-pad-ya, ” i.e. what is in front of (i.e. in the way of) the feet (as an obstacle)

Sounds loosely close to how i understand it, i like the term 'conceptual proliferation' for english and i think it fits the discourses well. I conceived it as literally 'fi-fiving' so one make five out of 'fi', idk, definitely difficult to translate but not difficult to understand i think. What one sees that one papancizes about.

That's easy.
I take "self of phenomena" as being the same as "intrinsic essence" (svabhava) of Madhyamaka, confirmed by this answer.
In this answer (written 15 Aug 2018), I thought that the Madhyamaka
"everything is empty of intrinsic essence" meant that everything does not truly exist on its own. A chair is a convention, yes, but whether a chair really exists or not, is not of interest in Theravada.  A chair is of course compounded and conditioned (sankhara). The concept of a chair is of course constructed by papanca (reification or conceptualization or objectification-classification).
On that same day, I was exploring the topic of whether Theravada self and Mahayana svabhava are related in this question.
Then a few days later on 21 Aug 2018, I figured out the connection and asked a question, to which Andrei wrote this answer which I quote:

Shunyata refers to the fact that everything is an abstraction,
simplification, subjective observation, and that in fact everything
appears from interaction of a bunch of processes (known in this
context as "causes and conditions") - including the process of
perception. Shunyata and Sankhara are closely related.
While Papanca refers to the process by which we take that empty stuff,
those appearances, and because of ignorance assign to them the status
of real, objective, clearly delineated things.

Uhuh! Then I got it. "Everything is empty of intrinsic essence" does not mean that a chair doesn't exist at all, ontologically speaking. It simply means that a chair doesn't exist the way the mind thinks it does.
Then on 28 Aug 2018, I connected the emptiness of Theravada to the emptiness of Mahayana through Snp 4.14 in this question.
So, now my understanding is that they are related.
Fast forward, this answer from 23 May 2020 would answer this question too:

But how does this relate to Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka? According to
Madhyamaka, all things are empty of intrinsic essence (svabhava).
The beautiful form of a human being, is such a thing, which is empty
of intrinsic essence i.e. it is empty of the essence given to it by
your mind. If papanca is like baking, then svabhava seems to be the
cake.
In other words, Nagarjuna is talking about the mental concept of
things, and further, he generalizes to cover everything, even physical
objects and Nirvana. If you see that Nagarjuna is talking about the
mental concept of things, then you would find that he is not
contradicting the Buddha.
To my understanding, Nagarjuna is not saying that the world is an
illusion, rather he is saying that your mental model of the world is
an illusion. To think about anything in the world, you actually need
to have a mental model of it.
This can be further linked to anatta. Objectification-classification
(papanca) assigns intrinsic essence (svabhava) to things, relative to
its relationship to the mental idea of the self (atta), which itself
has intrinsic essence (svabhava), given to it by
objectification-classification (papanca). According to Snp 4.14, when
you put an end to "I am the thinker", the root of
objectification-classification (papanca), you will end craving and
clinging. And by this, you end suffering.

And then I wrote this answer on 1 Apr 2021 which also discusses this in detail.
Also interesting is that mental models are called "the world" (see this question) in some Pali suttas. Andrei explained the difference between "The World" and "The All" there.
I summarized in this answer:

So, the "world" of SN 12.44 corresponds to the world of mental
formations (sankhara loka) arising from mental proliferations
(papanca), that is derived from the feelings (vedana) coming from
the contact of consciousness with the six sense media and their sense
objects (The All).

So, in this sense, Theravada does say that everything in "the world" doesn't truly exist at all. So, the chair in "the world" doesn't exist too.

Ok, from all I can tell this looks pretty much how I understand things as well. I still think your answer from 15 Aug 2018 doesn't "sound" correct, but it could be just mere words getting in the way. Like, for me I'd say it is both true that "everything does not truly exist on its own" AND that "Everything is empty of intrinsic essence" does not mean that a chair doesn't exist at all, ontologically speaking.

It seems it is getting harder and harder for me to decipher any real disagreements about doctrine with either you or Andrei once we put aside clumsy words :)

Perhaps you misunderstood the comment in question,

The mental idea of the self is a type of papanca and non-self objects are also papanca.

I don't read it as saying that, "papanca is selflessness of phenomena".
I read it as saying that, "papanca is (somehow selfish) mental ideas" -- about (any and all) objects, including both the so-called "self" and/or about any other ("non-self") object.

In case it matters I think it's not making an assertion about things -- i.e. an assertion like, "Everything has no self", meaning not just anatta (not my-self) but also even sunyata (not it-self)" -- and is instead commenting on how people tend to think about things/everything.
I think it's used to imply that thoughts are not only self-centered but also "diffuse" or abstract -- I guess like, going from perception of a specific "rock" or "stone" to theories about rock in general.
And it seems to be used colloquially to criticise people's theorizing about experiences.

Perhaps you are right, but he also says this: " What you call "selflessness of phenomena" is called papanca (reification or conceptualization or objectification-classification) in Theravada."

@YesheTenley I have corrected it now in my answer. "Self of phenomena" = "intrinsic essence" (svabhava). If papanca (reification or conceptualization or objectification-classification) is the process of baking, then svabhava is the cake.

I can't answer as to the Mahayana comparison, but afaik the pali discourses never say that the self is like this or like that.
The method states that everything is not self and that a self can not be established to be a truth or reality.
The discourses also speak of a doctrine of self with which beings are yoked.
This is analogical to people holding in mind knowledge or a doctrine of names, surnames & first names, etc
These names are designations for people & things but the things which are named aren't the name and a name of a person cannot be pinned down as a truth or reality as a body can be, a person can live without a name not without a body.
In regards to that one can say that all things are not their name seeing how they exist whether they are named & however they are named.
It doesn't mean that the name of things is something apart from things that are named because we are naming the naming as well as doing it, so there is a truth of naming but that truth is likewise not the name you give it.
This is similar to the difference between a true statement and a lie, both are a statement and exist in as far as the statement exists but the truthful statement refers to something that is existent independently of the statement whereas the false statement can not be said to be referring to truth or reality. This doesn't mean that lies are not included in reality because there is certainly the truth of lying but all reality is not lies and lies can not be pinned down as truth & reality.
In Theravada, there are elements that can be known to be a truth & reality and they are all not a self, incl the word 'self'. It's like the word Buddha is not a Buddha.
The word has an expression, a meaning, and a referent but the referent for this word 'self' will always be a convention as Ruben puts it, I call it abstraction, the abstraction isn't nothing but it is certainly not what we think it is, ie the fist/lap or a fan spinning so that you see a disc where there is no disc if the fan stops spinning you see blades where was a disc.
If a person was to think that all territory which isn't his kingdom was his kingdom, that would be grasping with the wrong view on his account and we could demonstrate that all the territories are not his kingdom to smart ppl.
Likewise, it is with elements which smart people can agree upon as truth & reality, these too can be demonstrably shown to be not personal & not a self.
In Theravada, it is closer to the truth if one says 'what feels is 'feeling', rather than 'a self feels' or that 'a person' feels', although one can speak in conventional terms as well and it is necessary because elements tied to delusion depend on that grasping with the wrong view, so we have to understand what lines of reasoning prompt those.
Technically there is no need for the term person to describe what is there because feeling feels, consciousness cognizes, discernment discerns, the intellect knows, thinking thinks, contact is of the three, body disintegrates &, etc
However one can also think about what is there having grasped with the wrong view and thus abstract what is there in terms of elements being personal.
If one does this then it's called 'being taken in', being taken in a cause for being shook, therefore one shouldn't be taken in and remain unshaken, discerning qualities present right there.
One can entertain this idea of grasping with the wrong view without agreeing with it in order to understand it's coming into play & the effects of papancizing based on it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Chinese Korean & Japanese aesthetic cultural practices at the altar
I recently attended a tea ceremony, and was reminded of how it is considered polite in Asia to handle everything with two hands. My first dharma teacher was from Hong Kong, and did this, but I notice it is not done or understood by most Western practicioners.
I've been reading about Takuan, and got a copy of The Book Of Tea, and it's got me very interested in how ideas about the aesthetics of how we act and behave shape our minds. It seems like having a clear sense of how to move smoothly and stably helps cultivate positive qualities. Especially in regard to interacting with the altar, and moving in the dharma room, I feel it would be useful to have a better understanding of this.
Does anyone have any guidance or suggested texts towards this?

I was told (for politeness towards a teacher from mainland China) that when offering a gift you use both hands -- I think it shows that the offer is whole-hearted (and not off-handed).

From the Lion's Roar article entitled "How to Drink a Mindful Cup of Tea" by Joseph Emet, dated July 22, 2021:

If you have ever watched one of Thich Nhat Hanh’s talks, you have
probably witnessed elements of tea meditation. Halfway through a talk,
Thich Nhat Hanh will pause and pour himself a cup of tea. Then, as
several hundred listeners watch his every move, he will slowly raise
the cup to his lips and enjoy a few unhurried sips. He sometimes holds
the cup with both hands as if to illustrate that his whole attention
is on it.
Thich Nhat Hanh truly takes a break when he drinks his tea. He is not
using the time to prepare his next topic. Paradoxically, taking a true
break is more effective than using the time to think of your next
move. As you disengage even momentarily from your surface mind, you
access deeper layers of your self to include in your discourse or
journey. That allows you to talk, move, and act more authentically as
a whole person.

The rest of the article provides some guidance about tea meditation or tea mindfulness by famous Vietnamese Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh, who is also founder of the Plum Village Tradition.
And also the excerpt "Pouring Tea" by Thich Nhat Hanh himself in Lion's Roar would be interesting. This was excerpted from the broader article "The Miracle of Everyday Mindfulness" by Thich Nhat Hanh also in Lion's Roar.
From "Pouring Tea" by Thich Nhat Hanh:

When I pour tea, I like to pour the tea mindfully. When I pour the tea
mindfully, my mind isn’t in the past or the future, or with my
projects. My mind is focused on pouring the tea. I’m fully
concentrated on the act of pouring tea. Pouring tea becomes the only
object of my mindfulness and concentration. This is a pleasure and it
also can bring many insights. I can see that in the tea there is a
cloud. Yesterday it was a cloud, but today it is my tea. Insight is
not something very far away. With mindfulness and concentration you
can begin to develop the insight that can liberate you and bring you
happiness.

There are more tea quotes by Thich Nhat Hanh in this blog entry (by Justine Warne):

Tea is an act complete in its simplicity.
When I drink tea, there is only me and the tea.
The rest of the world dissolves.
There are no worries about the future.
No dwelling on past mistakes.
Tea is simple: loose leaf tea, hot pure water, a cup.
I inhale the scent, tiny delicate pieces of the tea floating above the cup.
I drink the tea, the essence of the leaves becoming a part of me.
I am informed by the tea, changed.
This is the act of life, in one pure moment, and in this act the truth of
the world suddenly becomes revealed: all the complexity, pain, drama of
life is a pretense, invented in our minds for no good purpose.
There is only the tea, and me, converging.

If we’re not mindful, it’s not tea that we’re drinking but our own illusions and afflictions.
If the tea becomes real, we become real.
When we are able to truly meet the tea, at that very moment we are truly alive.

Drink your tea slowly and reverently, as if it is the axis on which the
world earth revolves – slowly, evenly, without rushing toward the future.
Live the actual moment. Only this moment is life.

"If we’re not mindful, it’s not tea that we’re drinking but our own illusions and afflictions." has to be one of my new favorite quotes. Amazing.

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


text:
What is the historical basis for the buddhas examples of "wrong livelihood"?
One of the recurring themes in the teachings of the buddha is the noble eightfold path; the basis for achieving nibbana. Oftentimes the components of it are presented as their "wrong" counterparts, and usually a row of examples is provided for what some instances of those "wrong" counterparts are. I am specifically curious about what kind of practical basis (as many of the teachings have some) the instances of "wrong livelihood" might have, with regard to the historical context of when the teachings were formed.
In DN.10. "Subhasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato" the following phrase can be found: (emphasis mine)

There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong livelihood. This includes rites for propitiation, for granting wishes, for ghosts, for the earth, for rain, for property settlement, and for preparing and consecrating house sites, and rites involving rinsing and bathing, and oblations. It also includes administering emetics, purgatives, expectorants, and phlegmagogues; administering ear-oils, eye restoratives, nasal medicine, ointments, and counter-ointments; surgery with needle and scalpel, treating children, prescribing root medicines, and binding on herbs. They refrain from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such wrong livelihood. … This pertains to their ethics.

Some of these are easily explained, such as performing mystical rites for luck and blessing, but the examples of medical practice and administering "...nasal medicine, ointments..." leave me somewhat confused. What could be a historical reason for why these practices are considered "wrong livelihood", and more generally, what is the core traits that define "wrong livelihood"?

The examples in my quoted passage appear pretty specific and related in some way.
I expect these were some of the ways in which "holy men" might "make a living" -- i.e. practicing mystical rites, fortune-telling, and medicine.
The Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained says,

... includes such practices as:

running messages and errands for kings, ministers of state,
householders, etc. A modern example would be participating in political
campaigns.
scheming, talking, hinting, belittling others for the sake of material
gain, pursuing gain with gain (giving items of small value in hopes of
receiving items of larger value in return, making investments in hopes of
profit, offering material incentives to those who make donations). (For a
full discussion of these practices, see Visuddhimagga I.61-82.)
Practicing worldly arts, e.g., medicine, fortune telling, astrology,
exorcism, reciting charms, casting spells, performing ceremonies to
counteract the influence of the stars, determining propitious sites, setting
auspicious dates (for weddings, etc.), interpreting oracles, auguries, or
dreams, or—in the words of the Vibhaṅga to the the bhikkhunīs’ Pc 49 &
50—engaging in any art that is “external and unconnected with the
goal.” The Cullavagga (V.33.2) imposes a dukkaṭa on studying and
teaching worldly arts or hedonist doctrines (lokāyata). (For extensive lists
of worldly arts, see the passage from DN 2 quoted in BMC2, Chapter 10.
For the connection between lokāyata and hedonism (e.g., the Kāma Sūtra),
see Warder, Outline of Indian Philosophy, pp. 38-39.)

Monks are allowed to practice medicine but for each other, not for laypeople and not for "livelihood".
There's a more extensive list of what's not considered Right Livelihood for monks on pages 773 through 778.
I expect there is (at least sometimes) a historical basis for each rule: my impression is that the Vinaya rules were formulated as needed -- i.e. when someone did something wrong, the Buddha said "don't do that", and that became a new rule -- and that Vinaya's commentary includes the "origin stories" for the various rules (but I'm not sure that the Vinaya's commentary has been translated).

The quoted passage refers to wrong livelihood for monks, but not necessarily for lay persons. You can find more such descriptions in DN 2.
This is because a monk is meant to be a professional practitioner of the Dhamma (Buddha's teachings), concentrating on study of scripture, contemplation, meditation and teaching of the Dhamma.
Wrong livelihood for lay persons can be found in the sutta quote below:

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
engage in."
AN 5.177

I am aware of this distinction, but I feel like my question is still relevant. The examples in my quoted passage appear pretty specific and related in some way.


text:
Why is there even a way to the end of suffering?
There are the four noble truths and we know who and how he found and taught them. There are philosophical questions like where did the first Karma come from and so on, that are not quite conceivable to us beings. But out of curiosity I came upon another question and I don't know if there is an answer to it.
Every being is born and feels pain and acts on it and more or less identifies with it at least in the way of "I am the one who feels pain". And by feeling, perceiving and thinking it learns the ways of the world and how to sustain itself until it dies. If this is the way the world is turning on and on how come there is a way to realize this and be free of it? If everybody is more or less caught up in it from birth how can one use this life to realize it is "fake"?

In MN64, the Buddha discusses the conundrum of identity and the presumed immaculate innocence of infants:

MN64:3.3: For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them?
MN64:3.4: Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them.

And when that underlying tendency manifests:

MN64:5.2: Their heart is overcome and mired in identity view,
MN64:5.3: and they don’t truly understand the escape from identity view that has arisen.

Although we might search for the escape from identity ourselves, the Buddha also says:

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.
AN2.126:1.2: What two?
AN2.126:1.3: The words of another and proper attention.

The Buddha himself had many teachers, including Buddha Kassapa in a previous life. And he listened with proper attention.
Listening with proper attention, we might come to understand something quite important...
If identity view arose, then it must also disappear, hopefully before our deaths in this very life. Impermanent phenomena are unsatisfactory. Impermanent phenomena cannot be a foundation for steady contentment and peaceful equanimity. So, rather than focus on identity, we turn away from identity. And any step away from identity view is a step towards the Noble Eightfold Path.

MN64:10-12.4: They contemplate the phenomena there as impermanent …
MN64:10-12.5: They turn their mind away from those things …
MN64:15.4: If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, they’re reborn spontaneously … and are not liable to return from that world.
MN64:15.5: This too is the path and the practice for giving up the five lower fetters.”

That is how we all start on the path. We start on the path by questioning the value of identify view and we listen to others with proper attention. And with insights gained, we deepen our practice, gradually becoming living proof of the Buddha's words.
Identity view is a false prophet. Look beyond.

MN62:3.2: “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”

So we really don't need to know about the why of identity view. We do need to examine our assumptions carefully and note that suffering inevitably follows when we listen to identity view. In a burning house, it's better to get out the exit than to wonder why there is an exit.

I think I never read MN64 so I will give it a read. It sounds like what I was searching for. And yes you are absolutely right, since it is impermanent it has to cease eventually. It was right under my nose.

Thanks. What would be the pali term for the baby's underlying tendency?

@Max Click the "Views" icon at the top of any of Ven. Sujato's translations, and enable "View root text with translation" (also "Activate Pali word lookup"). The view of the root text shows that the word is sakkāyadiṭṭhānusaya which is sakkāya plus diṭṭhānusaya (the latter being diṭṭhi plus anusaya).

Very helpful @ChrisW. ;-)

What Buddha calls 'dukkha' (suffering, dis-harmony) comes from childish, primitive thinking (and action based on such thinking).
As you said, we observe interactions, we figure out patterns and regularities, and based on these we make assumptions about the world.
Problem is, our observations are quite superficial, our patterns are overgeneralized, and on top of that we confuse our observations and assumptions with reality. Then, when the actual reality knocks on the door, we resist and keep on grasping to our ideas. That's what I call "childish thinking" and this is essentially where dukkha comes from.
So dukkha comes from a low skill level, but a skill is something that can be developed. This is why there's a way to the end of suffering, because childish thinking can be outgrown.
Just like people realized that bacteria thrives on bad hygiene - and learned to wash hands - in the same way we can understand how childish thinking leads to trouble and disharmony, and learn to operate on a different level of skill.
This is why it's called The Way of The Civilized ("Arya" in Pali).

Kusala Sutta: Skillful
"Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.'
"Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'"

There's a confusion here between pain (or pleasure) and suffering that goes to the heart of Buddhist teachings. Yes, if I hit my thumb with a hammer I will feel pain, and that has value in teaching me to be more present and cautious when I'm hammering things. But that isn't suffering. Suffering is a purely mental phenomenon: suffering is when my mind becomes so focused on the memory or avoidance of that thumb-pain that I develop anxiety about using hammers, or anger at the hammer for having hurt my thumb, or resentment of the person who told me I should use the hammer in the first place.
Pain is an event that happens at certain (hopefully infrequent) moments of our lives. Suffering is an ongoing mental infliction that can fill all the moments in-between.
Pleasure is also an event that happens at certain moments of our lives, and we can suffer over pleasure just as easily. We experience something we like, and then we find we can't stop thinking about it, can't stop chasing after it, can't stop indulging in it, come hell or high water. We become like a dog who fixates on a ball and charges after it, completely oblivious to the things and people it knocks over in the pursuit, and terribly anxious and frustrated if it finds it can't reach it.
Nothing in the Buddhist worldview suggests that we can or should stop feeling moments of pain or pleasure. That is, as you say, how the world turns. Buddhism teaches that we can stop suffering over those moment of pain and pleasure; break that dog-mind fixation on chasing or escaping. Pain and pleasure are facts of existence; suffering is, well... a lifestyle choice, maybe? And we can choose a different lifestyle.

That is what I meant with "... more or less identifies with it ..." and being more or less caught up in it. If this was not the case the birth wouldn't take place in this way because one is free from the start. But it is somehow hard to speak about such things or explain it.

@trainofthought: Did I misunderstand your question? Are you looking for something more in the vein of why we are enmeshed in karma in the first place?

It's the order of nature to go along with craving according to Iti 109. And as quoted by OyaMist, even a little baby has this underlying tendency to go with craving according to MN 64.
However, Gautama Buddha, like previous Buddhas before him, strove and discovered the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path that leads to the permanent end of suffering, and he taught us this with his extraordinary skill of teaching as a sammasambuddha. To discover this on one's own without guidance from the Buddha is extremely rare and difficult, though not impossible.
The Noble Eightfold Path involves going against the order of nature, going against the current. Craving is going with the natural current, and leads to becoming stuck in suffering. Renunciation is going against the natural current and leads to liberation from suffering.
Why is there even a way to the end of suffering?
Well, Edward Jenner discovered the vaccine in 1796, and went against the flow of nature to train the body to fight an infectious disease before it encounters it. This lead to the eradication of many infectious diseases. Otherwise, to suffer from the infectious disease, and possibly recovering or dying, is going with the flow of nature.
Similarly, Gautama Buddha discovered the Noble Eightfold Path in approximately 525 BCE, and that's why we have such a thing today. The noble Right View as taught by the Buddha is the vaccine against permanent suffering.

"Suppose, bhikkhus, a man was being borne along by the current of a
river that seemed pleasant and agreeable. But upon seeing him, a
keen-sighted man standing on the bank would call out to him: 'Hey,
good man! Although you are being borne along by the current of a river
that seems pleasant and agreeable, lower down there is a pool with
turbulent waves and swirling eddies, with monsters and demons. On
reaching that pool you will die or suffer close to death.' Then,
bhikkhus, upon hearing the words of that person, that man would
struggle against the current with hands and feet.
"I have made use of this simile, bhikkhus, to illustrate the meaning.
And this is the meaning here: 'The current of the river' is a synonym
for craving. 'Seeming pleasant and agreeable' is a synonym for the six
internal sense-bases. 'The pool lower down' is a synonym for the five
lower fetters. 'Turbulent waves' is a synonym for anger and
frustration. 'Swirling eddies' is a synonym for the five strands of
sensual pleasure. 'Monsters and demons' is a synonym for womenfolk.
'Against the current' is a synonym for renunciation. 'Struggling with
hands and feet' is a synonym for instigating energy. 'The keen-sighted
man standing on the bank' is a synonym for the Tathagata, the Arahant,
the Fully Enlightened One."
Iti 109

MN 64 actually transport the matter that certain circumstances and quoting out of the whole wheels context doesn't make sense at all and would add just a further confused person into the reign here. It's therefore amazing that there isn't a way out of the cause of avijja, improper attention, as long not meeting the outwardly cause of vijja: association with Kalayanamitta.
It had been taught by the Sublime Buddha of what is the cause, what's the way, that someone gains inside by oneself, so it's not understandable how a person, presenting a notion of firm conviction, answers, does, 'smarter' then his teacher and picks out phrases to lead people into common householder-equanimity...
So to leave also an access open, good householder, just that much: "...To what extent is there an awakening to the truth? To what extent does one awaken to the truth? We ask Master Gotama about awakening to the truth.”...Into the Stream.
Much success in trying to leave home and gain a footing in a borderland.


text:
What does "becoming" mean in the phrase "the 10 fetters of becoming"?
From Wikipedia's Sutta Pitaka's list of ten fetters:

The Pali canon's Sutta Pitaka identifies ten "fetters of becoming".

sakkāya-diṭṭhi
vicikicchā
sīlabbata-parāmāsa
kāmacchando
vyāpādo
rūparāgo
arūparāgo
māna
uddhacca
avijjā

My best guess is that "becoming", in this context, has the same meaning that it does in the context of pratītyasamutpāda.

avijjā
sankhara
viññana
nama-rupa
salayatana
phassa
vedana
tanha
upadana
bhava <--
jati
jarāmaraṇa

Notice that avijjā is both
(1) the last of the 10 fetters
and
(2) the first of 12 links of the dependent origination of suffering,
This suggests that cutting the last "fetter of becoming" results in the dependent condition which gives rise and sustains the entire cycle of suffering to cease.
Therefore, an understanding of avijjā and bhava and their inter-relationship will be of interest to many.
Gil Fronsdal describes the first 9 steps of dependent of origination (preceding "bhava/becoming") thusly

1: avijja: ignorance; the choice to ignore / avoid discomfort
2: sankhara: intention
3: viññana: attention
4: nama-rupa: mobilization of "body and mind" in the direction of the attention
5: salayatana: mobilization of the "6 senses" in the direction of the attention
6: phassa: contact
7: vedana: feeling tone
8: tanha: craving
9: upadana: clinging

Source: 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination
Notice that the choice to ignore / avoid the source of the discomfort conditions / shapes / influences our choice of intention.
Our choice of intention, in turn, conditions / shapes / influences our choice of attention.
Our choice of attention, in turn, conditions / shapes / influences how we are compelled to move in the world including our choice to believe that happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for the THIS sensory experience.
Our choice of what we cling to (updana), in turn, conditions / shapes / influences becoming (bhava)
by creating the conditions for
the formation of an identity
capable of attaining the craved sensory experience to which we are clinging.
For example, the pain of the perception of rejection might compel the formation of an identity to prove to ourselves that we are worthy of attaining the object of our desire.
So the meaning of becoming (bhava), in this context, is something like

moving/acting with the aim/intention
to create the conditions whereby
our clinging to a craved sensory experience
can be satiated.

With regard to the last 3 steps of dependent of origination, quoting the comments under this answer:

“When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is
no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be ...  So long as
the choice to pursue the sense-desire via becoming and birth is
rewarded with acquisition, ignorance [AKA "avoidance"] is rewarded, clinging to “wrong
view” is rewarded and we remain trapped in the cycle of suffering.
Only when the unskillful choice of ignorance [AKA "avoidance"] is not rewarded by
acquisition does the mind feel forced to search for an alternative way
to alleviate the suffering. Only then will it feel compelled to think
more deeply about its unskillful choice to ignore the discomfort which
is feedback to be investigated for insight. An insight the mind
desperately needs to find to break the cycle of suffering."

Gil also suggests that jaramarana (aging & death) is short for "aging, death, sorrow, lamentation and despair".
Source: 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination
This suggests that even if we attain that which we were clinging to, new rejections will arise to fuel the fires of greed, hatred and delusion and hints and that the subjugation of conceit (mana) is not only necessary to end the cycle of suffering, it is in direct opposition to becoming (bhava) which seeks to strengthen the identity to attain the craved for sensory experience which is being clung to.
What is avijjā?
In this context and considering that avijjā is both
(1) the last of the 10 fetters
and
(2) the first of 12 links of the dependent origination of suffering,
understanding the meaning of avijjā is crucially important.
Being consumed by "sorrow, lamentation and despair" is compelling us to "ignore/avoid" something important and it is THIS choice to ignore/avoid which sustains the entire cycle of suffering.
Therefore, if the aim is to end suffering, understanding exactly what is being ignored/avoided is of some importance.
So what exactly are we choosing to ignore/avoid?
From neuroscience we know that ...
The sensory-motor brain evolved because it enabled beings to respond to sensory experiences with moves that improved the probability of gene survival.
It does so by constructing and continually refining a sensory-motor predictive model of the world to guide movement.
It does this by "knowing and seeing".
Whereby "knowing" is making moves in the world as if the model were 100% correct and "seeing" is verifying if the sensory experience predicted by the model is (1) correct or (2) a misprediction.
In the event of a "misprediction", beings respond by ruminating to discover the error in the predictive model (insight), reformulating the predictive model to improve its predictive power. i.e. Greater understanding (panna) enables us to move through the world with greater equanimity (uppekha) because our predictive model is constantly improving to make better predictions.
The problem is that mispredictions are accompanied with varying intensities of pain.
The biological purpose of "pain" is to provide the sensory motor brain with strong feedback that its predictive model of the world is incorrect and to keep the attention focused on the sensory experience until the source of the error in the predictive model has been discovered and corrected.
But the problem is, if the intensity of this pain (first arrow) exceeds our ability to hold it in spacious non-judgmental awareness and investigate it for insight, we will feel a compulsion to ignore it; to avoid investigating it; to leave the error in the predictive model unfixed; in favor of the pursuit of sense-desires.
The entirety of the dharma is oriented towards correcting this single unskillful decision by training the mind to turn towards the suffering and to search for the insight which leads to the correction in the sensory-motor predictive model of the world.
In this context, becoming (bhava) should be corrected.
This would explain why it is one of the 4 āsavas:

1: kāmāsava
2: bhavāsava <--
3: diṭṭhāsava
4: avijjāsava

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asava
But this is only a strong intuition. I lack certainty in this meaning.
If you possess insight that can contribute to a stronger understanding, please provide commentary.

See also Wikipedia's Four stages of awakening.

So “becoming” fully awakened to seeing things as they actually are?

I think it means "becoming" like "the wheel of becoming" (i.e. samsara) -- the fetters which bind to the wheel.

I don't know why they're called or translated as "fetters of becoming" instead of just "fetters".
The Pali word for "fetters" seems to be saṁyojana -- I don't know whether that same word is also translated "fetters of becoming", or whether for example there's also another word (a compound word) that's used sometimes and that adds a Pali word for "becoming".
The definition of saṁyojana says,

bond, fetter SN.iv.163 etc.; especially the fetters that bind man to the wheel of transmigration Vin.i.183; SN.i.23; SN.v.241, SN.v.251; AN.i.264 AN.iii.443; AN.iv.7 sq. (diṭṭhi˚); MN.i.483; Dhp.370; Iti.8 (taṇhā) Snp.62, Snp.74, Snp.621; Ja.i.275; Ja.ii.22; Ne.49; Dhp-a.iii.298 Dhp-a.iv.49.

So I guess it's "becoming" in the sense of "bound to the wheel of transmigration".

One who has no fetters is "unbound", an arahant.
One with fetters remaining continues: a non-returner (rebirth in heaven), and once-returner, and so on.

(Edit to add)
The Wisdomlib definition includes these:

Saṃyojana (संयोजन).—nt., once (Gaṇḍavyūha 387.3) °nā (= Pali °na, or saññojana, Pugg. 22.11 ff.), fetter, as binding to existence, to misery: parikṣīṇa-bhava-°na ity ucyate (Buddha) Lalitavistara 425.21

... and ...

Saṃyojana (संयोजन) refers to “fetters” and forms part of a title given to the Bhikṣus that accompanied the Buddha when he went to Gṛdhrakūṭaparvata at Rājagṛha according to Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (chapter VI). Accordingly, “the Arhats have broken the fetters (parikṣīṇabhava-saṃyojana) of this existence”.
These fetters (saṃyojana) are nine in number:

attraction (anunaya),
aversion (pratigha),
pride (māna),
ignorance (avidyā),
doubt (vicikitsā),
wrong view (dṛṣṭi),
unjustified esteem (parāmarśa),
avarice (mātsarya),
envy (īrṣya).

These saṃyojanas encompass all of existence and this existence encompasses all the saṃyojanas. Hence the expression parikṣīṇabhava-saṃyojana.

This is in the Mahayana portion of the definition, but is a compound word including bhava ("becoming").
A search for parikṣīṇabhava on suttacentral returns nothing.

What does “becoming” mean in the phrase “the 10 fetters of becoming”?
The five aggregates is the model I have always used for the term 'becoming'. The example in that answer refers to eye consciousness, but it also applies to thought forms as objects that impede the mind. In any case, it has served me well, and is an impromptu, no-fuss model that can be applied to yourself and other people anywhere and at anytime. Just that alone is enough to gather deep insight into the ten fetters and pratītyasamutpāda, the latter of which has been garnished far too extensively with a myriad of theory and heavy academia, leaving only the stench of a murky haze for other dhamma farers to try and struggle through.
So what exactly are we choosing to ignore/avoid?
Nothing that is worth writing home about. It is just our true nature. We choose to ignore it because it means that certain issues that we hold about ourselves have to be made conscious of. Many people would not want to go that deep with themselves, many people would not want to look at their stuff, which is all centred around the deceptive belief that the body is a personal object that the mind can own. Basically, you discover how selfish you are. The problem with that is there are many attachment types concerning the body, which can be roughly summarized using the ten fetters model.

My understanding is that the Theravāda tradition views emptiness (suññatā) as the not-self nature of the 5 aggregates. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

I agree that many people "do not want to go that deep" and they create "stories" to justify their lack of viriya to themselves. Perhaps the cloud of delusion created by clinging does not permit them to see clearly that courageously seeking to "see things as they actually are" is a far superior strategy for happiness than clinging and becoming?

Yes, you're right. The aggregates have a clinging aspect through the channel of the sense organs, which gives us a kind of tunnel vision along with a strong sense of self-identity with the body. It is this clinging that we must see clearly so that we can understand the not-self aspect. The six-sense consciousnesses - succinctly known as the body - then become released... or blown out. That is why the Heart Sutra says there are no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind.


text:
Is there a point practicing mantra if I can get to samadhi with pure anapana/breath meditation?
Been meditating for some years, been doing most anapana & also a bit of Goenka-vipassana. Have had certain experiences, samadhi states and jhana (although I'm still far from being able to stabilize and consistently maintain them).
In recent years, certain things transpired in my life such that I began a daily mantra practice. I now practice the mantra but I wonder if theres a point to it if I can already attain to samadhi states via anapana.
I've heard conflicting views regarding this; some say that mantra is just a way to concentrate the mind, and once you get samadhi you don't really need the mantra anymore. Others say mantra grant specific worldly benefits which make your practice in this human life more efficient, depending on the root deity/mantra being chanted.
Is there a value to mantra chanting over breath meditation? If my goal is to go towards liberation (or at least stream entry) as a layperson.

Mantra is a good way to concentrate the mind. But the purpose of mantras is to generate merit. If you are a fully enlightened being there is no need for merit. Just as there is no need for a boat after you have traversed a river and continued on your way, leaving the boat behind.
Merit counters afflictions. Once all affliction is cleared, there is no need any longer to generate merit, but I am repeating myself. Depending upon the vehicle you study under, afflictions are either actual entities, or they are just mental formations. I find the last understanding to be the clearest explanation for generating merit.

Mantras can be done in a way consonant with early Buddhist teachings. In that way, even one skilled in the jhanas, able to instantaneously enter jhana at will, still has use for them. For example, have key focus words that help trigger the memory on how to do different types of meditation, without having to recollect the mental verbiage of the meditation instructions. Even in late Abhidhamma for example, for a meditator who is using kasinas to do arupa samadhi, they mentally recite, "earth kasina, earth kasina", and it triggers their memory on how to enter that meditation they've done before quickly.

Mantras also generate insight in much the way koans do.  Unless you're really sure you've exhausted all there is discover in the one you are using (you haven't ), there's some benefit in retaining that practice.


text:
Are there any instructions on the pose of hand during meditation?
As I see and learn there are typically two different positions of palms and hand that
I see people meditating in.
One is keeping the palms turned up and kept on knees like this picture; which is a classic yoga pose

and the other way is to keep the palms in your lap with thumb tips touching each other, like this; the classic zen pose.

When I meditate I keep on changing between these two, as I feel comfortable. The two poses yield different mindfulness for me.
I think, most of the Buddhist meditate like the second pose, but the first one also yields better meditative awareness.
I want to ask are there any instructions in the suttas about this. Is there a Buddhist pose and Non-Buddhist pose?

Related: Does hand gesture have an impact on meditation or attainment of Nirvana?,  How do Buddhists use mudras?, What is a Mudra and what do they mean?, Significance of hand placement in forming mudra

Clean hands are important:

MN66:12.2: He’d see a mendicant sitting in meditation in the cool shade, their hands and feet well washed after eating a delectable meal.
MN66:12.3: He’d think,
MN66:12.4: ‘The ascetic life is so very pleasant! The ascetic life is so very skillful!

But seriously, there's a wide diversity of hand positions throughout Buddhist traditions. For example, my Rinzai Zen teacher instructed us to grasp left thumb with right hand nestled in left hand. See also ruben2020's suggestions in the comments above.
Overall guiding principles would include refraining from dullness, drowsiness, and restlessness.

DN34:2.3.68: It’s when a mendicant has given up sensual desire, ill will, dullness and drowsiness, restlessness and remorse, and doubt.

In terms of positive attributes the Buddha instructs:

DN34:1.6.73: ‘This immersion is peaceful and sublime and tranquil and unified, not held in place by forceful suppression.’

From these clear instructions, one may infer that meditation hand positions should be relaxed without being slack. They should also be engaged without tension.
Notably, the subject of meditation is more important than the form:

DN34:1.6.96: But a meditation subject as a foundation of immersion is properly grasped, attended, borne in mind, and comprehended with wisdom.
DN34:1.6.97: That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how a meditation subject as a foundation of immersion is properly grasped, attended, borne in mind, and comprehended with wisdom.
DN34:1.6.98: Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed.
DN34:1.6.99: This is the fifth opportunity for freedom.

Consult with your teacher for specifics of hand positions used in your chosen tradition.

First is the 'jnana mudra' or vitarka or knowledge mudra. Second is the 'dyhana mudra', or meditation or cosmic mudra.
The first is the  said to represent the continuous flow of wisdom with the circle of thumb & forefinger, and is said to help with clear perception & gaining knowledge.
The second is the triangle between thumbs & hands represents to represent the Three Jewels, & is said to help provide calmness & tranquility, and help eliminate mental disturbances.
The more & the longer you meditate, in my experience, the more you appreciate the subtleties of position. Keep noticing, keep thinking about why you are on the mat.

Initially, there may be some value in adopting a mudra.  For beginning meditators, I think they can help combat sloth and overall mental laxness.  I personally used the "zen mudra" for the first year or two of my Rinzai practice. But I think it's important to recognize that they're all ultimately unimportant.  As your meditation practice deepens, it's going to seem as if your body has dropped away entirely, merged with your consciousness, or has undergone some other comparable shift that radically alters your physical sense of self.  At that point, where your body is in space - to say nothing of your hand position - isn't going to mean a damn thing.
FWIW, I've been sitting with my hands just draped in my lap for the last 14 years to no ill effect.  If I had to give any advice, it would be to just pick one that you like.  When it ceases to be of use or seems to be getting in the way, feel free to discard it.

These are called mudras. They're not just symbolic; they're functional, in the sense that they have an effect on your meditation practice. The most common mudra that Buddhists use would be the Dhyana mudra.
If you want to see what it does, you could sit with hands on your knees facing downwards, note how it affects your breathing, then flip palms upwards the next day and see how your breathing changes. And then slowly try different postures to see how they make you feel. If they feel the same to you, then you haven't gone deep enough to notice the subtleties.
My advice regarding such things is; if you're a layperson and not totally committed to spending a lot of time meditating, just pick the one that's most comfortable to you. Worrying about the posture would be like a casual jogger worrying about the exact brand of running shoe; it only really matters when you reach the level of an Olympic athelete.


text:
temple policy for babies/young kids
are there any policies for bringing very young kids (14 month) to a temple/pagoda (stroller, clothes etc)? We

It has never been an issue in the various community sanghas I've attended. I think this question would be best asked directly to the sangha/temple you plan on visiting.

some are strict about footwear, I heard

i don't know as my knowledge any temple have SPECIFIC rules for carrying babies.
but parents or other elders should caring them proper and suitable way.

As for getting toward the path and letting go of what binds, good to try to let go of householders tasks, and leave home to be able to listen to the Dhamma, good householder.
As for certain 'demands', at large one would meet other householders even at monasteries, who usually follow their common pattern of behaviour demand of their societies. Generally there isn't much a policy in regard of such, but sure very thoughtfull if letting those train toward letting go of attachments, also and mainly toward the body not fall into possible faulty thought till lust and strong attachment.
What ever good householder is able to give or likes to hold on is householders merit, goodness, or demerits, selfishness. So a lot of opportunities to observe ones mind by doing merits. Nothing really to worry aside of own good conduct.
(As for South Asian: children, babies are usually everywhere on side, part with all their kind and care. Just some new conflicts wher woman take on usually mans task. Feeding child with breast as police-woman may cause lot of trouble, even if very flexible in 'natural' requirement of normal life)


text:
Please help me to better understand the simile of the turner for the first part of the anapanasati instructions
Can anyone post a video of what a "bhamakāro" from ancient India would be doing? If not, can anyone explain very clearly what we are talking about in terms of the tool that would have been used, the process, and what the person would have been doing?
Pali:

Seyyathāpi bhikkhave dakkho bhamakāro vā bhamakārantevāsī vā dīghaṃ vā
añchanto dīghaṃ añchāmīti pajānāti, rassaṃ vā añchanto rassaṃ
añchāmīti pajānāti, evameva kho bhikkhave bhikkhu dīghaṃ vā assasanto
dīghaṃ assasāmīti pajānāti. Dīghaṃ vā passasanto dīghaṃ passasāmīti
pajānāti.

Translation of MN 10 from Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn,
discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn
discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when
breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing
out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long'

Translation of MN 10 from Sujato:

It’s like a deft carpenter or carpenter’s apprentice. When making a
deep cut they know: ‘I’m making a deep cut,’ and when making a shallow
cut they know: ‘I’m making a shallow cut.’ ...

The question asks about the simile of the turner, but would you not also be interested in how that simile is used to give of ease of objectification to the objectless nature of mindfulness of breathing?

@Max what does that mean?

The Buddha uses that simile as a way to help a monk understand what kind of attention should be applied to the action of breathing. In simple terms, the monk develops one-pointedness of mind from the entire body, and once breathing is seen as a self-less phenomena, the monk gradually lets go of the one-pointedness. It is the peripheral awareness of the body that is crucial throughout all of this. Then he asks that the monk directs their mind to various insights for the simple reason that this type of mindfulness of breathing will induce jhana, where insight occurs readily.

Ajahn Sona has a useful video pertaining to Breath meditation here . At 15:00 you can see a lathe worker performing his chore and Ajahn Sona relates how it pertains to Breath meditation.

This is perfect! He explains it very well.

awesome, thanks... yes I had heard this talk but never seen a video showing what we are talking about. I've seen other videos where they are turning manually but never like this

@Adamokkha He shows the turner using one hand to move the bow to create small or big circles, but his attention is on the other hand (and toes) using the chisel. Similarly, you have to make short breaths or long breaths etc. but your attention should be on the parimukham.

Please see the YouTube video "Easy Wood Turning Lathe Projects" to understand what modern wood turning is about, and what a modern lathe looks like.
I also found an interesting YouTube video entitled "Ancient Lathe Machine Found in Hampi, India - Lost Technology Discovered?" which shows how a lathe may have been used in ancient India.
On the same YouTube channel, there's another video on this same topic - "Hoysaleswara Temple, India - Built with Ancient Machining Technology?"
It's possible that it was used not just to carve wood, but also stones, according to these videos.

The Pali terminology referred most likely to a carpenter's tool, where putting the tool in motion required long or short manual movements. The term añchati can refer to either a linear or a circular motion, so the important aspect is to understand the mental implications of the simile.
An interesting free-flow explanation was given in a commentary by paraphrasing the idea and expressing it in a different scenario for a modern audience as: Just as an experienced traveller, while taking a short route he acknowledges “this
is a short route” or while taking a long route he acknowledges “this is a long route”, just
so, a monk while breathing in long, he acknowledges “breathing in long”; when
breathing out long, he acknowledges “breathing out long”. When breathing in short, he
acknowledges “breathing in short”; when breathing out short, he acknowledges
“breathing out short”.
What was interesting about the commentary was not only the easier to understand simile but also the explanation that be it a carpenter, a potter, or a traveler, regardless of the metaphor, they all imply decision-making behind the action itself so it can prove useful to control the breath at first, alternating short inhales and exhales with long ones, until the attention is able to focus on the breathing process as it occurs autonomically.
Last but not least, as the attention becomes focused, He trains the mind “with every in-breath there will be the same awareness for all
bodily sensations” and he trains the mind “with every out-breath there will be the same
awareness for all bodily sensations”. He trains the mind “with every in-breath there will
be the calming down of bodily reactions” and he trains the mind “with every out-breath
there will be the calming down of bodily reactions”.

The lathe is truly an ancient tool. I do not know how the lathes of ancient India might have been different from this one in this video (besides materials used to make it). This is a bow lathe; another similar lathe is called a spring-pole lathe. (I do not belief flywheel- or “great wheel-“ lathes were invented yet). So more likely than not the piece of wood the turner worked rotated both forward and backward, meaning the turner can only cut half the time.
It’s a very vivid simile: a turner’s attention is concentrated on the edge of their gouge or chisel, and the workpiece at (and immediately near) the place the tool will contact it. It “deserves” close attention, because incorrect application of the tool could quickly ruin the workpiece and the tool might even “catch” the workpiece. Neither a long- or short-cut is inherently better than the other.
Interestingly, as an aside, lathe-turning has been referred to as “The hobby of kings” (At least in the West). It is generally considered an intrinsically gratifying past time.
Hope this is helpful. Similes are often only as useful as they are familiar; this is my best estimate of the kind of turner described in the suttas.

I suppose the word is related to Bhamati

Bhamati Bhamati [bhram; on etym. see K.Z. iv.443; vi.152. Expld at Dhtp 219 by "anavaṭṭhāne," i. e. unsettledness] to spin (of a wheel), to whirl about, to roam Dh 371 (mā te kāmaguṇe bhamassu cittaŋ); J i.414; iii.206= iv.4 (cakkaŋ matthake); iv.6 (kumbha-kāra-cakkaŋ iva bh.); v.478. — pp. bhanta. — Caus. bhameti to make whirl Vism 142 (cakkaŋ).

A "turner" (in English) is someone using a lathe. There's a photo in the Wikipedia article of someone using a wood-lathe -- there are surely lots of YouTube videos.
While the object is spinning, you introduce a sharp chisel, to make a deep or shallow cut.
Lathes were used in ancient India.


text:
In visualisation meditations, I don’t know “where” to look
When I first started meditating, the body scan phase confused me. For a long time, I imagined the shape of a body in front of me in the distance, and scanned down through it. More recently I’ve realised that you get much more out of it by scanning through the feeling of my own body “in place” — but I still sometimes get muddled about which perspective I am “seeing” or “experiencing” parts of the body from.
I’ve had the same challenge with the visualisation of the white pinprick at the solar plexus. Sometimes I wonder whether I should be looking “down” from my eyes, through my neck and into my chest… or if my “eyes” should themselves move to the chest … or… something else?
At the moment I am practicing with the visualisation of the red pearl / red lotus at the throat chakra, as recommended in the book Dream Yoga by Andrew Holocek. The same puzzle keeps coming up! Where should this shape be relative to my mind’s eye? What angle relative to my spine in three dimensions should it be in, where should the “camera” of my mind be in relation to it, and what should the resulting image actually look like? How should the feelings of my body relate spatially to this shape?
Here’s another example, a simple description of a visualisation from this blog entry that puzzles me:

Picture the energy of your root chakra as a ball of ruby light centered on the base of your spine. With each breath, see this ball becoming larger.

In this example, should I be “seeing” my body in front of me, like watching a mirror, so that I can look at the base of my spine? Or should I be feeling the base of “my” spine where I know it to be? In which case, “where” is the “ruby light”? My eyes can’t see the base of my spine when they are looking roughly ahead with eyelids closed.
I feel very confused, especially as I have managed to feel very “in” the breath and body at this point in my practice, but visualisation always humbles me. I’d welcome any guidance about this, including simple steps and theoretical underpinnings. Am I somehow too attached to the position and perspective of the eyes in my head and, if so, how would you loosen that and what replaces it? Is this a known challenge of body visualisation? Nobody seems to talk about “where” in experience a visualisation should emerge. It’s a bit disheartening.

This is more like a general comment than an on-point answer... You know why you're having this problem?
Because visualization is a kind of fabrication. You're creating the experience, assembling it from the elements (signs) available in your memory.
As you fabricate the seen you're trying to fabricate the seer and are struggling at that. Which is kind of ironic, because you have the very duality of subject/object right in front of your eyes and yet are looking for something more mundane than this immaculate insight.
Imagine if you succeeded at fabricating a nicely localized seer (aka the point of view) of these experiences. Now, think about that which is seeing the seer. From what perspective is it looking at it?
It's like that fictional story, a captive-born bird was told it needed to exercise its wings for something called "flight" it had never known, and it was complaining that the exercises were getting difficult due to the lift created by the strengthening wings. It seems to me you are having the same problem, my friend.
If I were you, I would reevaluate my practice and see if maybe I need to turn the page in my meditation handbook and practice the next thing.

Ah, I was just about to head down a similar road myself, then I saw your answer!

… something about what you said made my mind just do a backflip. I have some more meditating to do.

This answer keeps on coming up in my mind. I'm really grateful for the advice to 'practice the next thing' as well as the prognosis, which I didn't really understand at all back then but which tweaked my mind in a weird way, and has proven to be really on point I think! Thanks for recognising where I was at @andrei-volkov

Thank you, some call it clairvoyance but I call it TFW you half-guess, half-intuit someone's situation based on subtlest clues and it turns out right :)

It's possible to move the attention eye (inner eye) around and through the body without moving the eyes, and if you get good at it, maybe you can read the print on a newspaper several yojanas away.
Also, what you seem to perceive as trouble trying to conceptualize a body - in which your confusion centres around location, distance and space - could actually be used positively. Maybe some formless practices might prove fruitful like the arupa ayatanas starting with the investigation of space, how space occurs in conjunction with form and how you seem to move through space - which all lead to the exposure of your inner-world version of space, which is to say lacking. This can be investigated even off the cushion.
Moreover, Dzogchen and his pointing-out instructions might be useful and maybe ponder this Zen koan which points to the intangible essence of who we are:

Show me your Original Face, the face you had before your parents were born.

To focus on the main contention of your question: it is extremely practical to find some kind of body awareness during meditation and since you have an attachment to the eyes, then the facial region is where you should try to expand your attention. It shouldn't feel strenuous, but since the mind has been clinching for so long, relaxing the attention might feel unfamiliar and even uncomfortable, thus evoking confusion. That's probably what you're trying to work through at the moment.

Thank you very much for your thoughts. So many avenues to explore! I’ll gladly look into these and welcome the opportunity to transform a tension - I never considered working on abstract concepts in the world inside a practice, except perhaps compassion. I’ve been looking for a koan to work with recently too :)

To your last paragraph point, I guess you mean this as guidance during the visualisation practice, but this also sounds like something that could be worked on towards the breath and other objects.

After reading Andrei answer I really appreciate yours as complementary signposting to figure out what I am maybe touching on but not grasping.

I realize I didn't comment on visualization techniques. It has never interested me. Better to be with whatever is right there - that is real.

Just coming back to this comment after a while and I wonder, is it not a bit prejudiced to say that some objects of meditation are more “real” than others?

For example, is metta practice “real”?

@yellow-saint: Great question!: whatever is not there can only exist in the imagination. It is not that imagination is wrong, but that we pour too much belief into our imagination. However, such is the awkward nature of language, when I say "whatever is right there - that is real" this is the best pointer I can manage. All in all, whatever images, insights or objects occur in your awareness, they will only harbour a transient function. Nothing is actually real in any way that we conceptualize it.

@yellow-saint - What you're actually looking for has no objective qualities by which one can form the distinction of this and that - sometimes called blowing out. But it is not nothing in the conventional sense of there being nothing. It just cannot be reconciled with by using the vocabulary - but try we must! ;-)

@yellow-saint: metta practice, as described in the metta sutta, is a particular method for a particular person with a particular awareness that aims to direct the mind towards unconditionality - that kind of person is probably quite rare! But for most, it is only helpful as a means to address moral behaviours, and for these people the metta practice becomes a way to strengthen the subject/object duality, hence: "I must send these feelings to that person over there". In reality, there are no borders between anything.

There are meditations which do not involve any kind of visualizations at all, and I would encourage you to try those for a change. For example, look for Vipassana meditation, which fabricates nothing, and asks you to do absolutely nothing, but just to notice what is there.
You have probably heard of it even if you are not already aware of the name - it's the classic "close your eyes and watch your breath" meditation, at its core.
If you wish to scan your body, then let your attention or awareness move from the breath onto the other body parts. Especially if a body part requires your attention, for example due to pain, itching, tension and so on, just be very aware of it and really "allow" and sense the sensation, no matter if it's positive or negative. Do not try to suppress anything. If you wish to move on, gently move your attention somewhere else (can also be sounds or other senses if there are any), and if you find nothing of interest, go back to the breath.
If you ware not sure what it means to be "aware" of something, one hint is to simply tell yourself what you are aware of - for example, in your mind, "speak" to yourself "breathing breathing breathing" or "itching itching" or "tense stomach tense stomach" or "hearing car hearing car" or whatever it is.
The only special thing about the breath is that it is always there, so it's an easy anchor point.
Fun side fact: Aphantasia is the inability to voluntarily create mental images in one's mind. I have that. If I close my eyes, I can not make any image or object appear in my mind. It does not matter if it's an apple or an "energy ball" or whatever meditation object you want to use; it just does not happen. I do not know if this is related to your meditation problem, just wanted to bring it up.

Sometimes I wonder whether I should be looking “down” from my eyes, through my neck and into my chest… or if my “eyes” should themselves move to the chest … or… something else?

Your physical eyes should almost always never move. The visualization should occur in your mind's eye only. Unfortunately, it's a very common problem that the physical eye tends to wander where your mind's eye is, this is just due to habit and conditioning. The more you practice, the more it will subside. You could also do short sessions of anapanasati/breath meditation or other practices where the object is not visual, just to train your mind not to use your eyes and focus on some sensation-based object instead.


text:
What (spiritual/religious) terms did the Buddha redefine?
It seems a significant and overlooked contribution of the Buddha, his redefining of various terms of his day into definitions more conducive to the ending of greed, ill-will and delusion/ignorance.
What are (all) these redefined terms (if not listed elsewhere)?

It would be helpful to say some more about where you suspect they might have been redefined from. I'm guessing Hinduism.

maybe an example as the Buddhist take is different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyama

So you're asking: what identical words does Buddhism share with Hinduism that have different meanings. And your looking for a list of those words?

I think this is too broad, you don't expect to see a complete list in an answer, do you?

@AndreiVolkov It's atypical but occasionally a Stack Exchange site allows this kind of topic (for example here).

Max, yes, words, or termed concepts Buddhism shares with Hinduism but with different meanings. But even more helpful may be such words and terms Buddhism shares with any (major) teaching (systems) that were in significant use during the time of the Buddha. Priority perhaps given to the frequency of such words and terms used by the Buddha and/or the importance the Buddha placed on any of these.

The Buddha redefined the term Brahmin :

Yassa pāraṁ apāraṁ vā pārāpāraṁ na vijjati,
For whom the near shore,
the far shore or both do not exist,
vītaddaraṁ visaṁyuttaṁ, tam-ahaṁ brūmi brāhmaṇaṁ.
free of anxiety,
being detached, that one I say is a brahmin.
Dhammapada 385

The Buddha redefined the term "yañña" (sacrifice), sometimes spelt "yajna" or "yajña".
The Buddha discouraged animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, and other extra extravagant ritualistic sacrifices (soma juice drinking etc.), of which I quoted only part of the sutta of AN 4.39 below.
The Buddha however praised non-violent sacrifices, which I think refers to giving gifts (or contributing necessities) to family members.
So, it looks to me like he redefined this term from animal sacrifice to giving charity, which is also supported by this Pali-English dictionary entry.
A similar teaching is given in SN 3.9.

“Does Master Gotama praise sacrifice (yañña)?”
“Brahmin, I don’t praise all sacrifices. Nor do I criticize all
sacrifices. Take the kind of sacrifice where cattle, goats and sheep,
chickens and pigs, and various kinds of creatures are slaughtered. I
criticize that kind of violent sacrifice. Why is that? Because neither
perfected ones nor those who are on the path to perfection will attend
such a violent sacrifice.
But take the kind of sacrifice where cattle, goats and sheep, chickens
and pigs, and various kinds of creatures are not slaughtered. I praise
that kind of non-violent sacrifice; for example, a regular gift as an
ongoing family sacrifice. Why is that? Because perfected ones and
those who are on the path to perfection will attend such a non-violent
sacrifice.
AN 4.39

In SN 7.21, the Buddha redefined the ritualistic practice of purification by immersion in water, into purification by immersion in virtues.
In Sigalovada Sutta, the Buddha redefined the practice of prayer directed in six directions.

Curious indeed this "ongoing family sacrifice" -- I feel the translation for this has yet to come into its own so to speak/type


text:
What types of physical dwellings are most conducive for Buddhist lay life living?
I've heard of Vastu shastra, but what kind of dwellings are conducive to Buddhist practice and living and why?

Domicile? It's difficult to apply the meaning of that word within the context of your question. Please add more details. It will help draw more interest and quality answers.

I assume "domicile" means "where someone lives" -- probably a structure like a house, apartment, hut, or monastery of some kind.

Yes Chris you could say that for practical purposes

There is a recommendation on suitable lodging for monks and nuns in AN 10.11 quoted below.
However, there are no recommendations for lay persons as far as I am aware. I would say any physical dwelling which is conducive for the observance of the five precepts, is suitable. For example, having little disturbance from mosquitoes and pests is helpful for keeping the first precept of not taking a life. Also, not storing non-medicinal intoxicating substances like alcoholic beverages and recreational drugs is helpful for keeping the precept of not consuming intoxicating substances.

And how does a lodging have five factors? It’s when a lodging is
neither too far nor too near, but convenient for coming and going.
It’s not bothered by people by day, and at night it’s quiet and still.
There’s little disturbance from flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and
reptiles. While staying in that lodging the necessities of life—robes,
alms-food, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick—are easy
to come by. And in that lodging there are several senior mendicants
who are very learned, knowledgeable in the scriptures, who have
memorized the teachings, the texts on monastic training, and the
outlines. From time to time they go up to those mendicants and ask
them questions: ‘Why, sir, does it say this? What does that mean?’
Those venerables clarify what is unclear, reveal what is obscure, and
dispel doubt regarding the many doubtful matters. That’s how a lodging
has five factors.
AN 10.11

Inspired by user21667's answer, I found the Mangala Sutta (Khp 5 and Snp 2.4), translated and commented upon by Ven. Narada:

To reside in a suitable locality ... this is the greatest blessing.
Comments (Derived mainly from the Commentaries.):
Suitable locality:
Any place where monks, nuns and lay
devotees continually reside; where pious folk are bent on the
performance of the ten meritorious deeds, and where the Dhamma exists
as a living principle.

Where ever right view prospers, good householder. Living on good place, therefore is one of the basic great blessings.
To reside in a suitable location... is the highest blessing and Countries to leave & counties to go may give first ideas of what "matters" for long lasting happiness.

What types of physical dwellings are most conducive for Meditation
When our house was built in Sri Lanka local monks were consulted and reviewed the plans. The principles of Vastu were taken into account.
The shrine room was located on the north side of the upper floor facing the nearest temple. We are able to hear the chanting each morning and evening.
The main entrance to the house is in the north, other principles of Vastu are easily Googled and are generally common sense. Here is an interesting site: https://www.architecturaldigest.in/content/vastu-shastra-25-tips-make-home-radiate-positive-energy/
The house is located in the jungle on top of a hill, there is seldom traffic on the road that passes the place. The only sounds that might disturb meditation is the singing of birds in the morning, but that is easily gotten used to. There is usually a nice breeze through the house.

Thanks so much for this real life example. I'm now curious if there are any writings on Buddhist Vastu -- like if there are any universal guidelines regardless of physical dwelling location.