text:
What to do if (somehow involuntarily) one kills an animal?
It happened to me during dinner, yesterday: I wanted to move a mosquito that was in my plate and accidentally killed it :(
What's the appropriate thing to do in such cases?
Is there any mantra to recite in order to have some benefit for the insect?
I'm asking this because I read about a mantra to be recited "in front of your shoes" so that, in case of walking on top of an animal, then it would be "less bad".
But probably I'm totally wrong :)
In any case, I don't think my question is a duplicate of the guy who killed a mosquito on purpose because it was suffering.
I killed it because my intention was to move it from my plate, but I didn't pay much attention and did it wrongly.

II think this question was asked before -- Today I killed

ChrisW, I think you're right - but yesterday while posting the question Stack exchange didn't show that specific question. But thanks, now I'm going to read that thread :)

You're right, that other topic is too much about "intentionally" (on purpose) which isn't applicable here. A similar story also about intention is The Story of Thera Cakkhupala which accompanies verse 1 of the Dhammapada.

Thank you, Chris! Have a nice day :)

Ciao Lucio! Welcome to the site.

intention i s a necessary condition of karma, so if it was unintentional it was not "wrong".

thanks, sorta_buddhist - ita was definitely not intentional :)

Your concern for the mosquito recalls the limitless heart's release:

MN43:31.2: Firstly, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion … They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing … They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. This is called the limitless heart’s release.

Establishing such a mindfulness in every moment of the day benefits one and all.
The mosquito is gone, yet for those who remain, perhaps a gentle puff of air might be more skillful if needed for the next mosquito. And perhaps, even then, a simple letting be might suffice. Abide in the limitless heart's release and your heart will know what to do.

Thank you - I for sure learned it, and next time I will not use anything else than a gentle puff of air, or better nothing at all as you are suggesting.


text:
How to deal with our aversions & judgements?
There’s one issue that seems to be very divisive in my conversations. And I realize that it is because of me and my own aversion & anxiety.
I have done drugs. But one drug that always bothered me since I was young was cocaine. My father abandoned my mother when I was young and was very much involved with it as an abuser and a seller. For this reason I was always sure to not use it. I’ve been around it a few times & each time I get extremely uncomfortable. Not only that, but when somebody close to me talks about it in a nonchalant way, it tends to make me so uncomfortable that I can’t help but get defensive & agitated. I feel very hypocritical because I have done other drugs like acid and mushrooms and feel no aversion to that. And I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed.
Is there any Buddhist guidance when it comes to how to deal with our aversions & judgements?
I’m mostly sober now & plan to stay that way, but just because I’m on my own path, I feel that I shouldn’t judge others on theirs.

It's unpleasant to you and so you get upset. There is a path to abandoning of aversion but it entails abandoning lust and ignorance as well.
The path is just this eightfold noble path and the development is of the seven factors of awakening,  five faculties, five bases of strength, four exertions of effort and the four establishments of mindfulness.
Here are relevant texts;

"Rahula, develop the meditation in tune with earth. For when you are developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable & disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind. Just as when people throw what is clean or unclean on the earth — feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the earth is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable & disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.062.than.html

You can develop meditation in tune with water by pondering and coming to agreement with the statement that a person consists of 6 elements; earth property, water property, wind property, fire property, space property and that which is callef mind, consciousness or intellect which is illuninous but defiled by taints of delusion.
This will be a basis for developing perception of equanimity by seeing others as yourself [6 elements described in mn62] and in tune with earth, water, wind, fire & space.
This is the optimal way to think.
Due to an attachment to the doctrine of self and lack of development of optimal thinking, there is the arising of thoughts connected with greed, aversion & delusion verbalized thus;

There being 'I am because of this (or: by means of this),' there comes to be 'I am here because of this,' there comes to be 'I am like this because of this' ... 'I am otherwise because of this' ... 'I am bad because of this' ... 'I am good because of this' ... 'I might be because of this' ... 'I might be here because of this' ... 'I might be like this because of this' ... 'I might be otherwise because of this' ... 'May I be because of this' ... 'May I be here because of this' ... 'May I be like this because of this' ... 'May I be otherwise because of this' ... 'I will be because of this' ... 'I will be here because of this' ... 'I will be like this because of this' ... 'I will be otherwise because of this.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.199.than.html

Aversion is craving based and is ultimately dependent on the notion of "I am" which depends on the doctrine of self and comes to be because there is an inclination to think in terms of that doctrine. Here aversion comes into play and is verbalized thinking 'i am bad because of this [unpleasant condition]', there comes to be craving verbalized as 'may i be otherwise'. This is basically due to the meeting with what is disagreeable and a longing for the cessation of that.
This ties into removal of distracting thoughts based on greed, anger & aversion;

"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. [...] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

Here is how to handle these states;

Nine bases of quarrelling, thus: — quarrelling is stirred up at the thought: ‘he has done me an injury,’ or ‘he is doing me an injury,’ or ‘he will do me an injury,’ or ‘he has done, is doing, will do an injury to one I love,’ or ‘he has bestowed a benefit, is bestowing, will bestow a benefit on one I dislike.’
Nine suppressions of quarrelling, thus: — quarrelling is suppressed by the thought: ‘He has done, is doing, will do me an injury, or ‘he has done, is doing, will do an injury to one I love’, or ‘he has bestowed, is bestowing, will bestow a benefit on one I dislike’, true, but what gain would there be to either of us if I quarrelled about it?’ https://suttacentral.net/dn33/en/tw-caf_rhysdavids

Analogically to this one can think; 'This person is saying unpleasant things, but what use is there in getting angry about it?'
Herr is another example from the commentary to Satipatthana Sutta;

Thus one should consider: "Being angry with another person, what can you do to him? Can you destroy his virtue and his other good qualities? Have you not come to your present state by your own actions, and will also go hence according to your own actions? Anger towards another is just as if someone wishing to hit another person takes hold of glowing coals, or a heated iron-rod, or of excrement. And, in the same way, if the other person is angry with you, what can he do to you? Can he destroy your virtue and your other good qualities? He too has come to his present state by his own actions and will go hence according to his own actions. Like an unaccepted gift or like a handful of dirt thrown against the wind, his anger will fall back on his own head."

Basically one should be mindful of thoughts as they arise, persist & cease. When noticing thoughts that are connected to delusion as in verbalizations of thoughts associated with 'the doctrine of self' such as described above one investigates them and makes an effort to abandon them as described above or here;

When evil unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion arise in a bhikkhu through reflection on an adventitious object, he should, (in order to get rid of that), reflect on a different object which is connected with skill. Then the evil unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
[...]
If the evil unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu, who in order to get rid of an adventitious object reflects on a different object which is connected with skill, he should ponder on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts thus: Truly these thoughts of mine are unskillful, blameworthy, and productive of misery. Then the evil unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
[...]
If evil, unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu who ponders on their disadvantageousness, he should in regard to them, endeavor to be without attention and reflection. Then the evil unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
[...]
If evil, unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu in spite of his endeavor to be without attention and reflection as regards evil, unskillful thoughts, he should reflect on the removal of the (thought) source of those unskillful thoughts. Then the evil, unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
[...]
If evil, unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu in spite of his reflection on the removal of a source of unskillful thoughts, he should with clenched teeth and the tongue pressing on the palate, restrain, subdue and beat down the (evil) mind by the (good) mind. Then the evil, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate and delusion are eliminated; they disappear. By their elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
[...]
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html

It is also good to reflect on anger as being harmful to oneself and others, something like this;

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with harmfulness arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with harmfulness has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does ...Whenever thinking imbued with harmfulness had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html
To abandon aversion completely on needs to remove the five lower fetters;

And what, Ānanda, is the path and the practice for giving up the five lower fetters? It’s when a mendicant—due to the seclusion from attachments, the giving up of unskillful qualities, and the complete settling of physical discomfort—quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to the deathless element: ‘This is peaceful;... https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/sujato

There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless.[4] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.080.wlsh.html

I've mostly talked about mindfulness of the ideation here and directing for the attainment of the first jhana from where due to mind's development the mind will leap to the destruction of taints [deathless].
This is just a short outline of how to overcome anger, a full exposition on it would be way too long for an answer.

But one drug that always bothered me since I was young was cocaine.
I used to feel that way about alcohol. :-)
Not only that, but when somebody close to me talks about it in a nonchalant way, ...
Yes unfortunately it can be massively insidious. IMO it's a bit like smoking cigarettes but more so -- addictive, people who try it like it, and IMO their liking its (transient) effect affects their judgement and will-power, self-control -- and physically people can do it a lot, repetitively, and for a very long time, without its killing them immediately.
... it tends to make me so uncomfortable that I can’t help but get defensive & agitated.
I think I'd call that "a defence mechanism" according to pop psychology.
Buddhism might judge this kind of thing, according to whether it's "skilful", whether it's "beneficial".
There's plenty of advice in Buddhism for lay people, about not getting involved with bad friends and bad habits, wasting money and time and health, and everything -- see for example Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31), which I think of as the sutta about the "six directions".
Your friends' nonchalance might imply they're comfortable with their actions (and possibly that they're "in denial" about their own anxieties and/or the disadvantages of their own drug habits). Normally your innate human sympathy might suggest that therefore (because they are nonchalant) you ought to be happy/comfortable too, but in this case I reckon it's wise that you shouldn't, and wise not to agree with them, even if (or even, because) that anxiety you feel isn't pleasant ... and isn't neutral.
I mention "neutral" because there's Buddhist doctrine that feelings can be categorised as pleasant (and associated with craving), unpleasant (associated with aversion), and neutral (associated with ignorance). I think it warns that unenlightened people aren't good with neutral feelings, don't recognise them, don't know what to do with them -- and instead only crave what's pleasant and flee from what's unpleasant.
I feel very hypocritical
I'm not sure that's "hypocritical" -- I think that hypocritical would be blaming others while thinking that you can do no wrong -- for example, "It's fine for me to abuse the drug, but it's wrong of you" would be hypocritical IMO.
And I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed.
I guess that being judgemental is a bit contrary to the ethos of the drug culture (which might also want you to share drugs)
Someone who's judgemental isn't popular (and in general doing and saying whatever makes you unpopular might arouse anxiety too).
And I suspect that people who are (still) into drugs suffer from a relatively poor sense of judgement. Conversely I think that Buddhism (especially as described in the early texts) is about not suffering, and as a result of making good judgements (e.g. having "right view" and so on).
I also suspect that taking drugs will impair judgement, in various ways and for several reasons. Some drug users see that as a reason for taking drugs -- to "escape reality" or to have "an altered view" of it.
Is there any Buddhist guidance when it comes to how to deal with our aversions & judgements?
Yes, doctrine about the Brahmaviharas might be helpful:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

I summarise them to myself as,

I hope you're alright, "may you be well"
I don't want to hurt you
I'm happy when you're doing well (or doing good)
and equanimity

IMO nothing there requires you to be happy about the fact that people are abusing drugs, but the attitudes might be a good alternative to enmity/hatred/aversion (the Dhammapada too, says, "hatred is never appeased by hatred, only by loving-kindness").
Another thing you should consider is whether these people are good friends. I think that Buddhism is keen to recommend that you spend time with, learn from, associate with good friends -- and avoid bad friends (see e.g. DN 31 again, Kalyāṇa-mittatā, the Rhinoceros sutta etc.).
I might say that in my own experience, if you're going to keep bad friends, then it's especially important (at least for your own well-being if not for theirs as well) for you to also find and get good advice from, counsel, from "good friends" -- people who are virtuous, sensible, self-controlled, knowledgeable, perhaps professional.
You might even (among other places) learn something from Nar-Anon -- learning from other people's experience -- or perhaps (from a more explicitly Buddhist context) https://5th-precept.org/ (though unlike -Anon I've haven't experienced that .org).
Another thing that Buddhism recommends is "seeing things as they truly are". I don't know a lot of doctrine about that. I guess that includes the doctrine of Dependent Origination, i.e. seeing how senses (sense-impressions, sense-contact, sense-consciousness) give rise to perceptions and feelings and cravings and so on and so on and so on. I guess it might also include accurately assess the advantages and disadvantages of, you know, different courses of action, different intentions, different reactions and decisions. And I think it means viewing things without craving and aversion, so it's a bit of a circular definition. :-) But I think it doesn't mean trying to see things with altered senses (acid and mushrooms) -- more to do with having a wise and non-grasping attitude towards reality (see also "suchness").
Finally (or firstly) I'd mention the four noble truths of Buddhism -- especially the second and third, i.e. that suffering is associated with craving, and, the cessation of suffering with the cessation of craving. My stereotype says that addicts get attached to drugs. That it was also because of the poisons that they turned to drugs in the first place (so now they have two problems, i.e. their original problem and now the drugs). That craving (for the drug) and therefore suffering ceases when they take the drug (which is why they take it) -- but only temporarily (that effect of taking-a-drug is impermanent, as well as being long-lasting in other ways, hence the temptation to take it again). So I'd recommend (and you probably agree) that what's better (than taking drugs to stop the craving) is to avoid the condition in which that craving arises, i.e. by not taking/becoming/remaining addicted in the first place.
One more thing, which might be a bit subtle but I think ties into to the doctrine of the Brahmaviharas. This answer associates "conceit" with "comparisons". And I think this is an opportunity for making comparisons (e.g. "being addicted is inferior to not being an addict" and "I am not an addict and they are"). Still, that answer says, a characteristic of semi- or relatively-enlightened people is that they make "true" (accurate) comparisons. However see also what Wikipedia says about conceit (Māna):

It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

Perhaps that's part of what you mean by not wanting to be "hypocritical" -- i.e. it's not wanting to be "disrespecting others" and so on. Conceit is also said to be a basis for (counter-productive and hurtful) sectarian arguments.
There’s one issue that seems to be very divisive in my conversations.
Perhaps it's normal to have preferences.
I'd personally prefer not to hear stories about people getting injured, or being cruel to each other, or horror movies, though I couldn't honestly say that it never happens. And in theory there are more or less tactful (adult, graceful) ways to listen -- ask if you can help -- or say you'd prefer not to, change the subject...
There's a whole bit of the Buddhist "noble eightfold path" -- i.e. Right Speech.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful, articulate & reasoned response. I will be referencing & researching this reply for a while. I stumbled on this thread 4 months ago & found it to be such a great resource. With this response, I feel like I have found the closest thing to a sangha in my life. I have been studying & practicing Buddhism for 11 years. Words cannot express my gratitude. Thank you again.

Thank you for saying so, friend, you're welcome, and I hope I'm not misleading you. I think that Buddhist doctrine distinguishes kinds of desire -- chanda versus tanha -- a desire can be wholesome or skilful, e.g. a desire for liberation, or possibly for sukha, though see also SN 51.15.

Similarly, IMO, doctrine suggests that not all forms of aversion are wrong, in fact monks for example should develop nibbida. But I think that there are stages to liberation, and/or even though something's good you shouldn't too much of a good thing (see also the "middle way", avoiding extremes) -- and perhaps that's connected with some seemingly-paradoxical Mahayana doctrine like "nibbana is samsara". But more to the point, even though desire for liberation (and thus some aversion to bondage) might be wholesome ...

... there's also apparently Mahayana doctrine about not having too much aversion, the wrong kind of aversion, or some undesirable side-effects of aversion -- see e.g. Aversion and Mahayana. I think it's for a reason like this that e.g. Andrei's answer suggests that it's a prejudice to work on, while I was trying to assure you that some of kind aversion (or possibly detachment, or remaining uninvolved) might be wholesome and sensible.

That's your prejudice and as any prejudice it has deeply emotional roots. The right way to deal with it would be to work on it in meditation, by focusing on the emotion it triggers in you and going through the entire chain of secondary associations, until you see the root.
The root will be some very basic formula, once you clearly see it you can undo it.

Thank you so much for your response. I will be sure to meditate on this soon.

How to deal with our aversions and judgements?

First of all, it's brave and wholesome that you have seen how these things are caused by your own aversion and disliking. That's really the first step towards changing them, to see and acknowledge that there is a knot to untie.
It's really not the internal/external phenomena that are the main issue, it's our own reactions towards them and our habits, inclinations and patterns of behaviour. Mindfulness meditation will help will that.
Secondly and very important, don't be too hard on yourself.
I have benefitted from watching this video by Ven. Yuttadhammo on Strong Attachments.
Have you ever considered doing a meditation course, either in person or online? You might benefit from having direct contact to a teacher that can guide you.
Best of luck on your path

Thank you for the lovely response. I have been meditating for 11 years, and I have made it a daily habit for three years. I have bipolar disorder and was in a deep depression after a terrible manic episode when I started daily. Mindfulness Meditation saved my life. I read books about meditation and Eastern philosophy daily too. I’m always open to new information. Eventually I want to be a certified meditation teacher so I can help others too. I already teach people what I know who are open to learning. I will definitely watch that video you sent me and am very appreciative of your guidance.

Thank you and welcome. You seem experienced in meditation. That's good.

My answer sound complicated. I just try to give the way I use.
There's a self who effected by drug.
There are lots of yourself's happiness, will be loosen by drug, eternalism.
There are lots of yourself's displeasure, which you don't want it, will arise by drug, annihilationism.
While you are worrying of self you forget 6 advantages, then you act with bias about drug.
To turn you back to 6 advantages, you need to practice 8 fold path.
The 8 fold path is leading by right view.
I already wrote about wrong view above, then this is the right view, the tiny right view base exactly.
Life has 3 elements, wholesome, unwholesome, and neither wholesome nor unwholesome.
Wholesome should arise.
Unwholesome should stop.
Neither wholesome nor unwholesome should arise or switch with wholesome. Neither wholesome nor unwholesome which arise or switching with unwholesome should stop.

There’s one issue that seems to be very divisive in my conversations.

wholesome, unwholesome, and neither wholesome nor unwholesome.

And I realize that it is because of me and my own aversion & anxiety.

wholesome, unwholesome, and neither wholesome nor unwholesome.

aversion & anxiety

aversion = unwholesome
anxiety = some wholesome, some unwholesome. they are switching speedy.
Some switching mind and mind factors and their body are neither wholesome nor unwholesome.

I have done drugs. But one drug that always bothered me since I was young was cocaine. My father abandoned my mother when I was young and was very much involved with it as an abuser and a seller. For this reason I was always sure to not use it.

Those were nither wholesome nor unwholesome which arise or switching with unwholesome,so denying is OK.

I’ve been around it a few times & each time I get extremely uncomfortable.

This moment, you are thinking of yourself only, not 3 elements and entire 6 advantages in the past the future and present.

Not only that, but when somebody close to me talks about it in a nonchalant way, it tends to make me so uncomfortable that I can’t help but get defensive & agitated.

If you are thinking of 3 elements and entire 6 advantages in the past the future and present, you will be happy to Karuna to a person in your mind, while you are realizing of disadvantage of addicting-mind of that person.
The key to get right view is you must judge the element as it is, but you metta to every  person. By this way, you will take care of both elements (reality) and person (unreality). This is called Right Thinking (especially, Abyapada-Samma-Sankappa).

I feel very hypocritical because I have done other drugs like acid and mushrooms and feel no aversion to that. And I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed.

Judge this paragraph by the way I wrote above.
The issue is not judgement. The issue is " how to judge right and proper to get the 6 advantages".

What are 6 advantages:

own advantage.
other's advantage.
social advantage.
now advantage, present.
then advantage, future; both this and next life.
Nibbana.

These 6 advantages can mix more than 6. However, we think of at lease 6 every moment to manage 3 elements to be proper.

You have to know why you're averse. If we can meet and talk, I'll explore with you. But since this is mostly one-way, let me make a guess: You are concern about them.
Why is it you react this way only when it's about cocaine, and not acid and mushrooms? For that, perhaps you can see for yourself that you were not involved with these in the same way as you did with coke. I can only guess that your had a harder time when you were doing coke.
As for being judgemental, you said, "I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed." It seems to be you're just guessing that you're being judgemental. In this case, you're judging yourself.

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

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the five kinds of seeds?
In the Seeds Sutta (SN 22.54), we find there are five kinds of seeds, which can grow, when they are fertile, undamaged and securely planted on the ground with water to nourish them.
Water is delight and lust, or in another translation, relishing and greed.
Earth refers to the four stations of consciousness, or in another translation, four standing-spots of consciousness, i.e. form, feeling, perception and volitional formations.
But what are the five kinds of seeds? This translation of the sutta says "Consciousness together with its nutriment should be seen as like the five kinds of seeds."
What is consciousness together with its nutriment, that forms five kinds of seeds? What five?
In other suttas (e.g. MN 148), there are six kinds of consciousness - related to the six senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind or intellect).
But what are the five in this sutta formed by consciousness and its nutriment?
And what is the nutriment for consciousness? In another translation, this is fuel.

What is consciousness together with its nutriment, that forms five kinds of seeds? What five?

From Ven. Bodhi's note in "Middle Length Discourses":

Nutriment (ahara) is to be understood here in a broad sense as a prominent condition for the individual life-process. Physical food(nurture the body), contact (nurture feeling), mental volition (nurture consciousness to manifest to 3 realms of existence: sense, form, and formless worlds), consciousness (nurture name/form or mentality/materiality at rebirth, the psycho-physical organism in its totality); these are the elements that help perpetuating samsara; Craving is the origin of nutriment since craving of the previous existence is the source of the present individuality with its dependence upon and continual consumptions of the four nutriments in this existence.

Also from Ven. Bodhi's note:

"Bhikkhus, there are these five kinds of seeds. What five? Root-seeds, stem-seeds, joint-seeds, cutting-seeds, and germ-seeds as the fifth"[73] The five kinds of seeds (bija) are actually five means of propagation. Spk gives examples of the five kinds drawn from Vin IV 35.

And From Ven. Thanissaro's "The Buddhist Monastic Code":

The Vibhaºga defines bhÒtag›ma as vegetation arising from any of five
sources:

from bulbs, rhizomes, or tubers (e.g., potatoes, tulips),
from cuttings or stakes (e.g., willows, rose bushes),
from joints (e.g., sugar cane, bamboo),
from runners (e.g., strawberries, couch grass), or
from seeds (e.g., corn, beans).

Piya Tan explains similarly here. Please search for "The discourse on seeds".

here Consciousness+nutriment is like the a seed, like in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.077.than.html
but with karma-field replacing the 4 stations-earth for the seed...
But the nutriment is dropped in the remaining of the sutta.
In SN22.54, it is not that there 5 kinds of consciousnesses. Consciousness is the 6 usual consciousnesses, but here it is just ''consciousness'' in singular, after the nutriment is dropped.
The goal is to prevent the seed from growing,  which is done either by removing earth and/or water, or by damaging the seed directly.
And the buddha says that the path to remove consciousness is really removing the craving which ''moisturizes'' it. Then consciousness is liberated and since there is no water, it does not grow again. Everybody wants to know what happens to the liberated consciousness, besides being liberated, but they all end up copying the Hindus.
If you really want to connect sāhāraṃ with the number five, you only this sutta https://suttacentral.net/an10.62/en/sujato about the usual ''fuel for craving for continued existence'', which is ignorance and the fuel for ignorance is''The five hindrances.’'' but here the focus is on craving, not consciousness .

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


text:
Do some, all, or no Mahayanists claim that we are all "bodhisattvas"?
Do some, all, or no Mahayanists claim that we are all "bodhisattvas"? Obviously, those influenced by the Lotus sutra claim that we are all -- at least potentially -- Buddhas. But I'm unclear about the word "bodhisattva", whether anyone at all can rightfully claim they are a bodhisattva.
For example, I think I'm aware of some ch'an Buddhists, which was deeply influenced by the 'one vehicle', saying that we progress through stages, only being bodhisattvas after abandoning the three vehicles. But perhaps this is skilful means, and not at all the case?

As i understand it they think that those who do a ceremonial ritual of taking the Bodhisatta vows become Bodhisattas. I may be wrong tho.

that would make sense, at least. thanks

According to my knowledge, to become a bodhisattvas, the person should obtain due certainty of being a bodhisattvas from a Buddha with the effect of Karma. We could identify this fact by considering the story behind Maithree bodhisattvas.


text:
Is there anything akin to 'Jhana' in Zen Buddhism?
I have read about 'Jhana' in Ajahn Brahm's book, 'Mindfulness, bliss and beyond'. It looks like, from his teaching of Theravada Buddhism, 'Jhana' is a pre-requisite to attain 'Nirvana'.
I want to ask, is there anything similar to 'Jhana' in Zen.
From my readings it does not seem it's 'Satori'.

it is my understanding the jhana occurs in zen, but is not always very important. depends on if we're talking soto, rinzai. son, etc.. that's from asking on-line tho. they are not the same as enlightenment

Zen and Jhana are the same word. Jhana is a word in the original spoken language. In Sanskrit it is written as Dhyana. Channa or Chan is how it came to Chinese language, and Zen is how it subsequently came into the Japanese (in English transliteration).
Jhana or Zen means the mind of meditation.
If you ever heard the phrases "attain the state of Zen" or "show me your Zen" - that refers to the same practice/result as Jhana. (The popular image that it refers to being a crazy wacko is a modern misunderstanding. "Attaining Zen" is breaking through to spontaneous clarity as a result of quality meditation practice.)
Of course if you are looking for the one-to-one Zen equivalents of each of the four jhanas or the eight jhanas, you will be disappointed - because such cut-and-dry categorization of practical experience would be very much against the spirit of Zen which emphasizes the first-hand discovery and learning-by-doing while avoiding the step-by-step instructions a-la Theravada as a dangerous trap for the mind. So in Zen everything is a little more fluid and the practice of meditation is not split in discrete phases. Nevertheless, the kind of meditation practiced in Zen is an authentic Jhana, functionally equivalent to the fourth Jhana of Theravada Buddhism.
Now, if you expand your scope beyond Zen and take a look at Vajrayana, it has two types of meditation closely associated with the first and second/third jhanas. I'm talking about Generation-phase and Completion-phase meditations correspondingly.
I imagine someone daring might combine the traditions and practice the Generation-, then the Completion-, then the Zazen/Shikantaza-meditation with great results.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

When a person doesn't eat, he gets hungry.  When you drop a ball from the top of a parking deck, it falls.  Likewise, when you watch your breath, a sign, or sit facing emptiness, the mind will eventually but invariably enter jhana.  Jhana is a natural phenomenon.  It manifests regardless of whether you practice Theravada, Zen, or nothing at all.  The Buddha himself entered the first jhana spontaneously under the rose apple tree.  So as long as the conditions for jhana are met, you can't help but arrive there.  People who practice Zen practice the jhanas.  If you are sitting sincerely, it is impossible to do otherwise.
All that being said, no, Zen doesn't "teach" the jhanas.  We would see that as a waste of time if not an utter hindrance to effective mediation.  Nothing screws up your sitting more efficaciously than trying to make something happen on the cushion.  Jhana (and really all meditation) should unfold like a flower.  You wait and let it happen.  If you try to speed the process along or, god forbid, try impose your own deluded idea of how and when that flower should open, you are going to kill it.  The more ideas and techniques you have bouncing around in your head, the further away you are.
Frankly, I also think the whole notion of stratified jhanas is just another bullshit obstacle.  The purpose of sitting is to prepare the mind for insight.  I mean, don't get me wrong - the mind is more stable and open to insight in the 4th jhana than it is in the 1st - but you can destroy all sorts of obstacles by just dipping your toe into absorption.  It's important not to fetishize mental states.  Insight is insight.  It doesn't matter if it comes from a mind parked in the 2nd jhana, the base of infinite space, or in the Wendy's drive thru.
And for the love of Pete, don't waste time arguing about what "Zen" is.  That's like picking one note or measure out of Beethoven's 5th and calling it the whole damn symphony.  Zen is everything and everywhere.

I could repeat my comment from above. You make it sound like Zen people reach Jhāna states but talk about it in other terms. If so, why would a Zen master recommend psilocybin to me "for deep experiences", because he thinks meditation cannot get you those?

I practiced Zen for over a decade. Only much later did I read the suttas. And after reading the suttas, I belatedly realized that practicing Zen alone without ready access to a teacher is a bit like learning to drive a stick-shift car on the freeway by yourself.
The suttas (Early Buddhist Texts in particular) provide a vast, coherent, inclusive, accessible and gently progressive path of practice that really informs the practice of Zen. For example, I did this for ten years on my zabuton:

MN118:17.2: Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out. When breathing in heavily they know: ‘I’m breathing in heavily.’ When breathing out heavily they know: ‘I’m breathing out heavily.’  When breathing in lightly they know: ‘I’m breathing in lightly.’ When breathing out lightly they know: ‘I’m breathing out lightly.’ They practice breathing in experiencing the whole body. They practice breathing out experiencing the whole body. They practice breathing in stilling the body’s motion. They practice breathing out stilling the body’s motion. They practice breathing in experiencing rapture. They practice breathing out experiencing rapture. They practice breathing in experiencing bliss. They practice breathing out experiencing bliss.

Everything that I read in the suttas aligns with my experience of Zen. I have found no contradictions. Indeed, one sutta in particular was particularly helpful to me in aligning the EBTs with Zen:

MN44:12.1: “But ma’am, what is immersion? What things are the foundations of immersion? What things are the prerequisites for immersion? What is the development of immersion?”
MN44:12.2: “Unification of the mind is immersion...

The EBT stratification of immersion (i.e., jhana's, form and formless dimensions, etc.) was also very helpful to me as a guide, and it revealed pitfalls to be wary of as well as approaches I had not yet practiced.
My roshi was a 6-hour plane flight away. He was an amazing teacher and I made some progress. For those without ready access to good teachers, there are suttas such as AN8.63 that provide instruction that can be read along with Zen scriptures:

AN8.63:1.2: “Sir, may the Buddha please teach me Dhamma in brief. When I’ve heard it, I’ll live alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute.”

you say, 'I belatedly realized that practicing Zen alone without ready access to a teacher is a bit like learning to drive a stick-shift car on the freeway by yourself.' Do you think practising Zazen alone without access to teacher will lead one nowhere. What can I do if I dont have access to teacher?

Great question. I added some more info and a link to a sutta that has helped me a lot.

That soothes my mind and was helpful. Thanks.

D. T. Suzuki wrote

In the view of zen, dhyana does not correspond to the true practice of
zen

and

Zen is not a type of dhyana

Dhyana can mean trance states, or it can just mean mental cultivation in general. It is the latter sense, it is argued, that is transliterated as ch'an. Furthermore

Rinzai and Soto... the former most often attacks absorption in trance
as mindless quietism... the ghost cave of the spirit... the latter...
rejects [its] striving

Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, p129
By contrast, I have seen it claimed by a Son monk that there is no access to the beginning of the bodhisattva path without the first dhyana.

Thanks for the reference. I just ordered a copy of Zen Enlightenment: Origins and Meaning which includes one of those quotes and which I hope will be a good introduction, including comparing and contrasting with Theravada.

i think i've read it, and i believe it is an AMAZING intro @ChrisW

alas i'm thinking of this two series https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9CYeWYtYBS4C&dq=zen+enlightenment+origins+and+meaning&source=gbs_book_similarbooks but yeah get it too ;)

I read a page of Heinrich Dumoulin's book before I ordered it. I hope it will be relevant (make sense) to me in particular -- given what I know and don't know already, and what I hope to better understand... FWIW in the one page I read the author seemed to be writing in a step-by-step kind of way, covering the topic or bridging the two topics -- he was a university professor (also a Jesuit), which, is a style of exposition I'm familiar with. I'll see how that happens when it arrives; I'm no longer able to read many books.


text:
What is the textual structure of original Pali versions of the suttas of the Majjhima Nikaya?
I am reading Majjhima Nikaya from the translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. In this book, each sutta is divided into several numerical sections. Each section consists of one or a few paragraphs. Now Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in the Preface that the numerical sections were introduced by Ven. Nanamoli and are not found in the original Pali manuscripts. I wonder whether the paragraphs also are modern creations or are actually found in the Pali manuscripts. In the case of collections of verses like Dhammapada or Udana, it is easy to separate them in old palm-leaf manuscripts. But in case of prose treatises like Majjhima Nikaya or Digha Nikaya, how the paragraphs were separated traditionally?

The Dhamma was traditionally spoken, heard, memorized and recited in unison. It was written down and organized later.
Bhante Sujato has a very useful overview of the challenge of organizing the Dhamma throughout the ages. Notably, Bhante Sujato has himself chosen to organize the Tipitaka into numbered segments, which allows translations to be matched up with their root sources verse by verse.

The Pali suttas were initially transmitted by oral tradition. The composition is in a poetic form, using mnemonic formulae for memorization and recitation. The recitation would have also served a ritualistic or ceremonial purpose. Even the tradition says that in the First Buddhist Council, Ananda and Upali recited the suttas and the vinaya.
So, the answer is that the textual structure of the Pali suttas is irrelevant because they were originally transmitted orally. What is more important is the "oral" structure of the Pali suttas i.e mnemonic formulae.
Please see "Pali Oral Literature" by L.S. Cousins. I quote below:

Early Buddhist literature is an oral literature. Such a literature is
not without its own characteristic features. A widespread use of
mnemonic formulae is one of the most typical of these. I would refer
to the considerable body of research on the nature of oral epic
poetry. In such poetry the formulae are used both as an aid to actual
performance and to maintain the continuity and form of the epic
tradition.
Both these features are certainly present in the sutta literature. In
the first place many suttas are clearly designed for chanting. We
should assume that, then as now, their chanting would produce a great
deal of religious emotion - the pamojja and piti-somanassa of the
texts. The difference of course would be that the language of the
suttas would still be directly comprehensible to the hearers. In these
circumstances suttas would be chanted by individual monks both for
edification and for enjoyment. We may compare the recitations
attributed to Ananda and Upali in accounts of the First Council. In
practice they would have to be tailored to the needs of the particular
situation ~ shortened or lengthened as required. An experienced
chanter would be able to string together many different traditional
episodes and teachings so as to form a coherent, profound and moving
composition.

The people at the PTS also divided each sutta in paragraphs, but not numbered.
The pali text they work on is this
https://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts_pali/mn/mn.2.077-106.pts_pali.htm
where there are already paragraphs
It is really the work of the each translator to find the beginning and end of a paragraph. it is not from a tradition.
THe palm leaf itself does not have any paragrpah, like here
EAP1150/1/77/4: Aggikkhandhopama-sutta pāli Description: A canonical text of the discourse of the Buddha warning the monks against sensual pleasures. The text originally belongs to Aṅguttaranikāya collection. Extent: ka [330] - ke [338]. Scribe(s): Monk Varananda. Additional date information: Copied c. 1804
https://eap.bl.uk/archive-file/EAP1150-1-77

We have Nikaya-Memorizers from 0 BE till now. Monks have the rules to memorize Sutta when growing up.
DN Commentary:

etenevupāyena asītibhāṇavāraparimāṇaṃ khandhakaṃ,
pañcavīsatibhāṇavāraparimāṇaṃ parivārañca saṅgahaṃ āropetvā ‘‘idaṃ
vinayapiṭakaṃ nāmā’’ti ṭhapesuṃ . vinayapiṭakāvasānepi vuttanayeneva
mahāpathavikampo ahosi. taṃ āyasmantaṃ upāliṃ paṭicchāpesuṃ – ‘‘āvuso,
imaṃ tuyhaṃ nissitake vācehī’’ti.
...
tadanantaraṃ mahāvaggaṃ, tadanantaraṃ pāthikavagganti, evaṃ tivaggasaṅgahaṃ catutiṃsasuttapaṭimaṇḍitaṃ catusaṭṭhibhāṇavāraparimāṇaṃ tantiṃ saṅgāyitvā ‘‘ayaṃ dīghanikāyo nāmā’’ti vatvā āyasmantaṃ ānandaṃ paṭicchāpesuṃ – ‘‘āvuso, imaṃ tuyhaṃ nissitake vācehī’’ti.
tato anantaraṃ asītibhāṇavāraparimāṇaṃ majjhimanikāyaṃ saṅgāyitvā dhammasenāpatisāriputtattherassa nissitake paṭicchāpesuṃ – ‘‘imaṃ tumhe pariharathā’’ti.
tato anantaraṃ satabhāṇavāraparimāṇaṃ saṃyuttanikāyaṃ saṅgāyitvā
mahākassapattheraṃ paṭicchāpesuṃ – ‘‘bhante, imaṃ tumhākaṃ nissitake
vācethā’’ti.
tato anantaraṃ vīsatibhāṇavārasataparimāṇaṃ aṅguttaranikāyaṃ
saṅgāyitvā anuruddhattheraṃ paṭicchāpesuṃ – ‘‘imaṃ tumhākaṃ nissitake
vācethā’’ti.
tato anantaraṃ
dhammasaṅgahavibhaṅgadhātukathāpuggalapaññattikathāvatthuyamakapaṭṭhānaṃ
abhidhammoti vuccati. evaṃ saṃvaṇṇitaṃ sukhumañāṇagocaraṃ tantiṃ
saṅgāyitvā – ‘‘idaṃ abhidhammapiṭakaṃ nāmā’’ti vatvā pañca
arahantasatāni sajjhāyamakaṃsu. vuttanayeneva pathavikampo ahosīti.
Translation:

As I've explained, 500 bhikkhus in first council recited 80 Bhanavara of Khandhaka (VN.Bhikkhu,Bhikkhuni,Maha,Cula) and 25 Bhanavara of Parivara together, then called it Vinaya-Pitaka.    At the end of reciting, the land shook. 500 bhikkhus in first council ordered Upali "Teach VinayaPitaka to your  students, Avuso".
...
500 bhikkhus in first council recited 64 Bhanavara in systematized language which included 34 Sutta 3 Vagga step by step (SilakkhandhaVagga, Mahavagga, Pathikavagga) together, then called it DigaNikaya and ordered Ananda "Teach DigaNikaya to your  students, Avuso".
Then 500 bhikkhus in first council recited MajjhimaNikaya 80 Bhanavara together, and
they ordered Sariputta's students  "Keep it, Avuso".
Then 500 bhikkhus in first council recited SamyuttaNikaya 100 Bhanavara together, and
they ordered Kassapa "Teach SamyuttaNikaya to your  students, Bhante".
Then 500 bhikkhus in first council recited AnguttaraNikaya 120 Bhanavara together, and
they ordered Anuruddha "Teach AnguttaraNikaya to your  students, Avuso".
The Rule
in commentary according to V.N. Mahākhandhaka:**

Qualities of nissayamuccaka-bhikkhu (teaching lay people)

Proficient to recite pāṭimokkha-pāli and to understand it's commentary.
Proficient to recite and to understand 4 bhāṇavāra (~1,000 syllable) of sutta and their commentary, to teach laymen on uposatha
day.
Proficient to recite and to understand sutta for bhikkhu's life such as andhakavindasutta, mahālahulovādasutta, ambaṭṭhasutta, etc.
Proficient to recite and to understand sutta for teaching in 3 chances: banquet for saṅgha by layman (nidhikaṇdasutta), funeral
ceremony (tirokuṭṭasutta), and auspicious ceremony (maṅgalasutta).
Enough understand to judge/to decide about saṇgha's ceremony such as uposatha, pavāraṇā, etc.
Proficient to recite and to understand his kammaṭṭhānā throughout the nibbāna-course.
5 years experience in monk hood as a monk.

Qualities of bhikkuparisūpaṭṭhāpaka-bhikkhu (teaching bikkhus)
If above layman's teachers want to teach bhikkhus (ūpajjhā-ācāriya, nissaya-ācāriya), they must increase their skill level to all of the following qualities.
These are for abhivinaya teaching:

Proficient to recite mahāvibhagha and bhikkhunivibhaṅga (first 3 books of thai 45 books pali-tipitaka) of vinaya-pitaka-pali. At least, he
can relay with the other 3 bhikkhu. Proficient to understand it's
commentary, too.
Proficient to recite all saṇgha's ceremony in vinaya-pitaka mahāvagga and julavagga.
Proficient to recite 14 vatta in vattakhandhaka.

These are for abhidhamma (kammaṭṭhāna) teaching:

Proficient to recite one of this suttanta-pali: mūlapaṇṇassa (1st/3 parts of M.N.) for student in M.N. faculty, mahāvagga (2nd/3 parts of
D.N.) for student in D.N. faculty,
sagāthavagga+nidānavagga+khandhavāravagga of S.N. or  mahāvagga of
S.N. for student in S.N. faculty, before half of A.N.  or after half
of A.N.  or ekakanipāta+dukanipāta of A.N. for student in A.N.
faculty, jātaka+commentary  (because kammaṭṭhāna was described in
commentary) for student in jātaka faculty.

Qualities of bhikkunovdaka-bhikkhu (teaching bhikkunīs)
If above layman's teachers want to teach bhikkhunī, they must increase their skill level to all of these qualities:

Proficient to recite whole tipitaka-pali and commentary-pali. Or at least, he still must recite whole tipitaka, but he can recite just one
commentary of suttanta, first 4 parts of commentary of 7 parts of
abhidhamma. However, vinaya-commentary is what he must recite it all.

Reference: tipitaka and commentary of vinaya pācittiyakaṇḍa bhikkhunovādakasikkhāpada and vinaya mahāvagga mahākhandhaka.

Related topic: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22917/10100
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23663/10100


text:
Why does 'thoughts' and 'memories' not part of aggregates?
In MN:44 it is said,

Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are
identity. That is: form, feeling, perception, choices, and
consciousness. The Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are
identity.”

If feelings are included in identity forming aggregates why 'thoughts' and 'memories' are not included. Afterall, what I think, like, what I feel, makes my self-identity. To quote Rene Decartus, 'I think therefore I am'. Isn't the constant chattering of mind generate a sense of self.
Also, memory of things I did have a powerful effect on sense of self.
So, why not included them?

the answers are right: the skadhas don't leave anything out, they are just a particular way of cleaving up / thinking about what we experience. i am not sure why they specifically are used

It's all included, it's just a slightly different structure.
Latent memories just sitting there are included in "samskara" (what's incorrectly translated as "choices" in your copy).
Active memories you are going over now are included either in "perception" (as associations to whatever you perceive)
Or in "form" if, for example, you are visualizing a piece of memory, creating forms in front of your mind's eye.
The way mental stuff is organized in Buddhism is a bit more technical than in our civilization. So instead of calling bunch of different things "thoughts", Buddhism gets more specific and classifies things according to how they work.
Thinking is going through a chain of associations, so each thought is a (mental) form, then it goes through perception (supported by latent memories), which finds next association, which then becomes the new form etc.

Bhante Sujato offers an interesting perspective on "choices", which admittedly don't align fully with the use of "memories" here. Alternate translations of "samskara" include "conditioned phenomena", which does apply to memories, but detracts from the understanding of the the ethical considerations of dependent origination (i.e.,  making choices out of ignorance). It's a difficult term to convey succinctly in modern languages. https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/explaining-sankhara-choices/10944

Which is why I left it untranslated above as "samskaras" and said memories were "included" (didn't call the whole thing memories). In my own head, I tend to call them "tendencies" which seems to align with all the meanings. Unfortunately not everyone understands the cosmological meaning of "tendencies", they sound too opaque for a common person.

Emotional thoughts and mental chatter are part of sankhara or mental formations or mental fabrications. The OP's translation calls this "choices".
It appears that memory is related to the aggregate of perception. Please see below.
From The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis:

Perception (saññaa)
Perception is awareness of an object's distinctive features. It
becomes six-fold in relation to the five physical sense objects
(color, sound, smell, taste, touch), and mental objects. It is sañña
that enables us to recognize an object previously perceived. .....
Perception and memory. Memory occurs not through a single factor but
through a complex process in which perception plays the most important
role. When the mind first cognizes an object through the senses,
perception "picks out" the object's distinctive mark. When the same
object is met with on a subsequent occasion, perception again notices
that its distinctive mark is identical with the previous one. It
"grasps" the identity of the distinctive marks. This "grasping" is a
complex series of thought processes, one of which connects the present
object with the previous one and another attaches to the present
object the previous one's name. Memory will be good if this "grasping"
functions well, and "grasping" will function well if the initial
"picking out" of the object's distinctive marks was clear, not
obscured by irrelevant thoughts. Clear perception comes through
attention. As the Buddha says: "In what is seen there must be just the
seen, in what is heard there must be just the heard, in what is sensed
there must be just the sensed, in what is thought there must be just
the thought."

By the way, feeling as an aggregate does not refer to emotions, as the OP implies. It refers to sensations as in feeling pleasure and pain from the six senses - eyes, nose, ears, tongue, body and mind.
From the same source:

Feeling (vedanaa)
In the Abhidhamma context the word "feeling" signifies the affective
experience of an object; it does not imply emotion, which comes under
a different heading. Feeling is associated with every type of
consciousness. Like the citta itself it is of momentary duration,
arising and perishing in an instant. This arising and perishing occur
in rapid succession, so much so that they create an illusion of
compactness and stability obscuring the momentariness. But the
momentariness can be experienced through the practice of mindfulness.
It will then be realized that there is no self or agent that
experiences the feeling. There is only the arising and disappearing of
an impersonal process. As long as we do not see how this impersonal
process occurs we will be led to believe that feeling is the self, or
the self possesses feeling, or feeling is in the self, or the self is
in feeling. These beliefs keep us bound to suffering — to sorrow,
lamentation, pain, grief, and despair.
Feelings are commonly classified into three types: pleasant,
unpleasant, and neutral.

Let's take an example. There are a bunch of roses in a vase in a restaurant. You see them - this is feeling or sensation. Then based on your past memories, you perceive it as roses. Oh... but then it reminds you of your ex-lover to whom you used to give or receive roses. Then the mind feels or senses the mental object of your ex-lover and his or her association with roses, and perceives it to be memories of events of the past. Then you start having emotions of sadness and start the mental chatter of negative thoughts about your ex-lover. That's part of mental fabrications.

re: emotions, I'm pretty sure the ancients did not lump emotions like we do, but separated them into the mental part vs somatic part (sensations in the chest or belly etc), and the somatic part is included in Vedana, I think.

I will answer based on the early buddhist texts.
Memories & thoughts are perceived [sanna] and that due to contact at mind-base, contact therein is between that which is called "consciousness,
mind or intellect" and ideation.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates."Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'" https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.082.than.html

Ideation is conceived & perceived by mind which arises as one thing and ceases as another.

what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html

Sankhara is that which creates mind as mind, ideation as ideation, mind-base as mind-base.

“And why, bhikkhus, do you call them fabrications? ‘They fabricate the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called fabrications.
And what is the conditioned that they fabrications?
They fabricate conditioned form as form;
they fabricate conditioned feeling as feeling;
they fabricate conditioned perception as perception;
they fabricate conditioned fabrications as fabrications;
they fabricate conditioned consciousness as consciousness.
‘They fabricate the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called fabrications. SN 22.79

Contact is requisite condition for feeling, what is perceived that is also felt, what is felt is also cognized, these [feeling, perception & conciousness] are conjoined.

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html

Felling, perception & consciousness are also conjoined with Sankhara because that which is felt and to that extent cognized & perceived, that is likewise also generated.

Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said to be conjoined with consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila

Therefore thoughts & memories are included in aggregates.


text:
How to prolong the abiding in a Brahmavihara?
Buddha has encouraged the practisioners to abide in the four Brahmaviharas.(Metta, Karuna, Mudita and Upeksha)
I have experience of Upeksha or Equianimity. After doing sitting meditation both Zazen and Anapana Sati my mind automatically enters into feeling of Equanimity albeit for small duration of 10-15 minutes, I feel calm and tranquil.
However, when I feel Equanimity it seems like its impermenant, the mind changes after sometime. So how do I prolong this feeling of Equanimity?

Related: Practice of the other three Brahmaviharas

Related: practicing the brahma viharas in meditation

@ruben2020 thankyou for comment. It almost answers my first question.

"Developing" (or "becoming") may be called bhavana, by the way, so see also e.g. Posts containing 'metta bhavana'.

@ChrisW that was very helpful and answers my first question. Thankyou.

Should we edit this question to remove the first part and keep the second?

@Andrei Volkov , yes, will you do it or should i do it.....but I will be more happy to keep it that way so as to get an answer tailored to my problem.

@TheWhiteCloud done

@Andrei Volkov Thanks :)

good question. can't you ak a zazen teacher? fwiw, any equanimity i've felt i quickly lost -- more like 10-15 seconds. don't be shy?

I've practiced metta by wishing for all beings to be well & happy, happy in the highest sense of the word in particular and thus utterly victorious. I don't do it blandly, i tend to do it in verse and most enthusiasticly.
Basically i hold that the Metta Sutta isn't just a poem but is actually a guided meditation and i train analogically;

This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace: ... https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html

Abhidhamma has this analysis;

And how does a monk dwell with mind accompanied by loving-kindness, suffusing one direction? Just as (he), seeing, may love a lovely, pleasant person; in the same way he suffuses all beings with loving-kindness.
Therein what is loving-kindness? That which in beings is loving, act of loving-kindness, state of loving-kindness, loving-kindness that is mental freedom (from ill-will). This is called loving-kindness. https://suttacentral.net/vb

When settled well in the first jhana i stop contemplating and will rather just sit mindful.

If even for the time of a finger snap, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu pursues a mind of goodwill, he is called a bhikkhu who is not devoid of jhāna, who complies with the Teacher's teaching, who acts according to his instruction, and who does not eat the country’s almsfood in vain. How much more, then, those who practice it frequently! https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/01/an01-053.html

As for developing mudita i do it analogically to metta in order to rejoice in the progress of others towards the goal of awakening & good fortunes but mostly towards liberation.
I focus on the good deeds & qualities of the past, those in the here & now and those to be inevitably performed & cultivated in the future.
When cultivating metta i wish for all beings to be successful and when cultivating mudita i rejoice in their progression towards the goal.

And how does a monk dwell with mind accompanied by altruistic joy, suffusing one direction? Just as (he), seeing, may have altruistic joy for a lovely, pleasant person; in the same way he suffuses all beings with altruistic joy.
Therein what is altruistic joy? That which in beings is altruistic joy, act of altruistic joy, state of altruistic joy, altruistic joy that is mental freedom (from jealousy). This is called altruistic joy.

Ie i will think about the beings in various states and that even the hungry ghosts and beings in hell will inevitably leap onward, having payed their debt they too will be merit-makers, of them currently paying their debt & getting reformed and of them having been merit makers in the past.
I think about the virtue of other beings and it is pleasant to think about so one can be happy on that basis. The simile i would give is if you have a child learning to walk and you rejoice in his progress towards the goal.
Similarly to metta i do it well into the first jhana.
Analogically, compassion i practice by perceiving the failures & stumbling of beings along the path to success & victory, the difficulty & crookedness of the path so hard to walk and the road so unforgiving and paved with pain.

And how does a monk dwell with mind accompanied by compassion, suffusing one direction? Just as (he), seeing, may have compassion for a miserable, wicked person; in the same way he suffuses all beings with compassion.
Therein what is compassion? That which in beings is compassion, being compassionate, state of being compassionate, compassion that is mental freedom (from cruelty). This is called compassion.

Compassion is probably the easiest to understand but it is difficult to grasp what is suffering in definitive sense of sankhara-dukkhata;

Monks, there are these three kinds of suffering.[1] What three? Suffering caused by pain,[2] suffering caused by the formations (or conditioned existence),[3] suffering due to change.[4] It is for the full comprehension, clear understanding, ending and abandonment of these three forms of suffering that the Noble Eightfold Path is to be cultivated..." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.165.wlsh.html
“Just as even a tiny bit of urine, or spit, or pus, or blood still stinks, so too I don’t approve of even a tiny bit of continued existence, not even as long as a finger snap.” https://suttacentral.net/an1.316-332/en/sujato

When we see the suffering of those who are dear we are moved to help however we can, in particular by helping ourselves in order to help others and to help others in order to help ourselves.
On equanimity

And how does a monk dwell with mind accompanied by equanimity, suffusing one direction? Just as (he) seeing, may have equanimity for a person who is neither pleasant nor unpleasant; in the same way he suffuses all beings with equanimity.
Therein what is equanimity? That which in beings is equanimity, act of equanimity, state of equanimity, equanimity that is mental freedom (from distraction). This is called equanimity.

Equanimity imo is best practiced by seeing others as yourself by focusing on beings being comprised of the 6 elements, with mind-element being illuminous but generally stained by defilements and vision obstructed by dust in the eyes. When one understands the doctrine of self as being untrue, the perception of equanimity is quite easy to attain by practicing in tune with external elements (see mn 62).

"Rahula, develop the meditation in tune with earth. For when you are developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable & disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind. Just as when people throw what is clean or unclean on the earth — feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the earth is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable & disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.062.than.html

This too one can do well into the first jhana by contemplating and when settled into one can switch to anapanasati to go up and to the fourth jhana based on the air element.
As to how to make the pleasant abidings last longer, it is a trial & error thing. Check this sutta (towards the end) http://www.yellowrobe.com/component/content/article/120-majjhima-nikaya/302-upakkilesa-sutta-imperfections.html

That was really helpful and to the point. Thankyou.

If you read the suttas carefully, you will see one topic reoccurring: Buddha says "here's a progression of meditation states one may achieve" and this sequence is invariably followed by a passage that says (paraphrasing) "and then the meditator shall come to realize that all such states are conditional and limited, and having realized that he attains the final Liberation".
Think about it. You want to prolong the good state. How does this relate to the First, Second, and Third Noble Truths? How does it look in light of Buddha's assertion that all phenomena are conditioned and therefore impermanent?

Yes, its a nice point of view to think about. Better to be aware of impermenance, aye. But the Buddha also encouraged abiding in to Brahmavihara so I asked. But I get your point. Thanks.

If you got my point you would be an Arahant ;) Abiding in Brahmaviharas is a stepping stone, to counteract bad habits like negativity, judgment, and jealousy. Nirvana is remainderless abandonment of any abiding and clinging to any state.

When I asked How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? Ven. Yuttadhammo replied

A view is taking something to be true, whereas conceit falls in the category of a simple experience, which one may or may not hold to be valid. It is similar with greed; one may want something without believing it proper to want, and one may likewise feel conceit ("I am better", etc.) without actually believing in a self. This is seen when, after the arising of a conceited thought, one mentally discards it as being based on delusion rather than accepting it as valid.
Identity view, sakkāya-diṭṭhi, is the belief that the aggregates are self; it is this belief that gives rise to conceit, greed, anger, etc., but it is seperate from all of these. It is useful to remember that, while one without sakkāya-diṭṭhi can still give rise to defilement, such defilements are only remnants of past belief in self and are certain to disappear within seven lifetimes at most.

So I gather that a "view" is more persistent, maybe more permanent, than a "simple experience".
The "experience" is less permanent because, after the thought arises, "one mentally discards it as being based on delusion rather than accepting it as valid".
Perhaps the same is so in the situation you're asking about -- i.e. you experience a temporary irritation or annoyance with someone ... but then "discard it rather than accepting it as valid".
And perhaps that is a step on the way towards "prolonging the abiding" -- the usual advice about having right view, discarding unskilful mental states when they arise, etc.
So part of what's important is developing the view, the belief -- what do you "take to be true" and "hold/accept as valid"?

I think that's related to believing and remembering the dhamma -- which I think includes doctrine like,

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.
All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, happiness (sukha) follows him like a shadow that never leaves him.
"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those harbouring such thoughts cannot be appeased.
"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those not harbouring such thoughts can be appeased.
Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.
People, other than the wise, do not realize, "We in this world must all die," (and, not realizing it, continue their quarrels). The wise realize it and thereby their quarrels cease.

IMO remembering and understanding, believing, using/applying the Dhamma to your real-life experiences, is a way to prolong and develop the abiding.

According to the Four stages of enlightenment,

A Once-returner (Sakadāgāmin) has greatly attenuated:

Sensual desire
Ill will

A Non-returner (Anāgāmi) is free from:

Sensual desire
Ill will

Perhaps that implies that though a "Steam-enterer" has and is developing right view, they still have (occasional) ill will -- which isn't "greatly attenuated" until later ("One-returner"), and isn't "free" until after that ("non-returner").
Perhaps that also implies you can expect to be "free" of ill will at about the same stage as being free of "sensual desire" (and after discarding identity view though before discarding conceit, restlessness, and ignorance).


text:
Why do some English-language texts refer to the Buddha as "Lord"?
I often see this word online, especially in Sutras translated into English. Does the original Sutra written in Pali or Sanskrit mentioned it like this?
The meaning of "Lord" as per wikipedia is I think quite a contradiction with Buddha:

Lord is an appellation for a person or deity who has authority, control, or power over others, acting like a master, a chief, or a ruler.

In Wikipedia it mentioned that Gautama Buddha "is often called Lord Buddha". I believe it's a misconception?
Compassion and Peacefulness are always the fundament of Buddhism -- if the "Lord" title can be changed to "Teacher", which is the truth and can make billions of people happy, then isn't that a good karma?
The reason i am asking this is because "some" people of other religions may see this word and feel very discomforted.
Compassion -> If words being changed from "Lord" to "Teacher", then many would rather practice instead worshipping. Many do not know who is Buddha, but claimed to be Buddhist like I did before. Many would go to temple to worship for more power, money, desiring higher quality of living, bigger house, etc which is contradictory with Buddhism teaching. It would make other non-Buddhists comfortable too.
Post note base on comments:
It sounds that base on the written statement, Buddha is dhammassāmī or lord of the dhamma but bhante "venerable sir" sound more decent or less offensive for others especially those non Buddhist (low EQ one).
The first definition of wikipedia ...

"Lord is an appellation for a person or deity who has authority, control, or power over others, acting like a master, a chief, or a ruler"

... is wrong or inapplicable, because none of that wording matches, except "Buddha is a person".
It contradicts with the 10 percepts of Buddhism -> Not to use false words and speech, or encourage others to do so.
Wikipedia is impermanence and Buddhism is not bases on written truth -- can somebody who has higher knowledge/wisdom request them to change it?
This is the first Sutra that lead me to Buddhism and it's one of the most common Sutra used in south China and South East Asia. 世尊 or bhagavā is commonly used. dhammassāmī or Lord is never been used. But 神(God in direct translation) is commonly used which lead to misconception. If you would ask me the 神(God) wording should be revised for Buddhism because the 神(God) in Buddhism is totally different from Christian/Muslim conception yet it's a very sensitive wording.
http://www.drbachinese.org/online_reading_simplified/sutra_explanation/EarthStore/EarthStoreSutra.htm
Let me know if I am also making any false words and speech, I am kinda learning here too.

What about the Lords of the House of Lords of UK? They are surely not gods. The current President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is Lord Reed.

"chakravartin" hth... keep searching lol

What about the Lords of the House of Lords of UK? ---> the problem is many people is Worshiping Buddha or Bodhisattva for more money, more power, bigger house, etc etc rather than practicing.

@littlestar yeah

For one, because en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Asia

In ancient Pali and Sanskrit texts the most common title for the Buddha is Bhagavan, which means someone rich and/or important (like e.g. Bill Gates or the president etc). This is how the Buddha is often called in the third person (i.e. Bhagavan raised from his seat and said...)
The way the Buddha is usually addressed in the second person (i.e. when you say "yes, sir, I'll do as you say sir") - is "bhante". This is understood to be a Pali version of the Sanskrit "bhavantaḥ" which means "all of you" or "[plural] you" or "the big/important you".
Another common reference is Sugata, which means the lucky one or the successful one.
Finally sometimes he's called Jina which means the victor or the winner (in a battle).
Lord is a common English translation of the first title, Bhagavan, and sometimes of the second one, Bhante.

how exactly bhagavan means rich or important? and how exactly does it relates to bill gates or president? even if you look up on wikipedia there is no such relationship.

Etymologically "bha-" or "bhaga-" has connotations of multiplicity and wealth. Bill Gates and President are examples of being rich and important correspondingly. If I were to copy Wikipedia this site would be redundant.

i was just giving the reference may be you can give the reference where you read how president and bill gates relate to "bhagwan".also from what i see on searching "bhaga-" means "lord, patron, sharer/distributor of wealth, prosperity" not "owner"

From Wikipedia: Etymology: Bhagavān ... from the noun bhaga, meaning "fortune", "wealth", cognate to Polish bogaty Serbo-Croatian bogat, Russian bogatyj "wealthy". Bill Gates is wealthy, do you need a reference for that?

"wealth" and "wealthy" seem pretty different to me

In the Sanskrit Rigveda, bhaga is an epithet of both mortals and gods (e.g. of Savitr, Indra and Agni) who bestow wealth and prosperity also from wiki

Wanna write your own answer? ;)

Your mentioning "[plural] you" sounds like the T–V distinction, which seems to exist in a lot of modern languages except not English, and in Sanskrit.

Bhagavan same as bhagavā right, means the blessed one? dhammassāmī is Lord so sound wrong mapping of word in English?

It depends on what translators choose to use.
Ven. Thanissaro's translation of AN 8.26 says:

"Lord, to what extent is one a lay follower?"

Ven. Sujato's translation of AN 8.26 says:

“Sir, how is a lay follower defined?”

It turns out that the Pali sentence is:

“kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, upāsako hotī”ti?

In this case, the term "bhante" is translated as "lord" by Ven. Thanissaro and as "sir" by Ven. Sujato.
In this sutta (MN 147), "bhante" is translated as "venerable sir" by Ven. Bodhi.
Of course, "venerable sir" is the best translation.
Usually, the Buddha is addressed as "bhante" (venerable sir) in the second person and as "bhagavā" (blessed one) in the third person. This is in reference to Pali suttas.
All three translators mentioned above, translate "bhagavā" as "blessed one". The Sanskrit version of this word, "bhagavan" is commonly translated in Hinduism as "Lord", like "Bhagavan Krishna" (Lord Krishna). But the original meaning in Sanskrit is also "blessed one".

For what it's worth the word "Lord" would usually imply to me (in a religious, Christian, and/or secular context) "obedience" -- i.e. you or I would say it mostly to imply obedience; and not (or even more than) in order to imply that the person is a benefactor, a generous patron.
I'm pretty sure that "obedience" is a Christian and/or Muslim understanding (e.g. "[may] thy will be done").
That (i.e. obedience) is how I read MN 147

Then the Blessed One, early in the morning, put on his robes and, carrying his bowl & outer robe, went into Savatthi for alms. Having gone for alms in Savatthi, after the meal, returning from his alms round, he said to Ven. Rahula, "Fetch your sitting cloth, Rahula. We will go to the Grove of the Blind to spend the day."
Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Ven. Rahula, carrying his sitting cloth, followed behind the Blessed One.

The "lord" in that translation is Ven. Thanissaro's translation of bhante -- compare:

Ven. Thanissaro

Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Ven. Rahula, carrying his sitting cloth, followed behind the Blessed One.

Ven. Sujato

“Yes, sir,” replied Rāhula. Taking his sitting cloth he followed behind the Buddha.

Pali

“Evaṃ, bhante”ti kho āyasmā rāhulo bhagavato paṭissutvā nisīdanaṃ ādāya bhagavantaṃ piṭṭhito piṭṭhito anubandhi.

IMO that (i.e. that it implies some obedience -- or "deference", "submission") is especially true when it's used in the vocative.
The same word -- bhante -- is used by the way in DN 16, among the Buddha's last words:

After my passing, mendicants ought not address each other as ‘reverend’, as they do today. A more senior mendicant ought to address a more junior mendicant by name or clan, or by saying ‘reverend’. A more junior mendicant ought to address a more senior mendicant using ‘sir’ or ‘venerable’.

Yathā kho panānanda, etarahi bhikkhū aññamaññaṃ āvusovādena samudācaranti, na kho mamaccayena evaṃ samudācaritabbaṃ. Theratarena, ānanda, bhikkhunā navakataro bhikkhu nāmena vā gottena vā āvusovādena vā samudācaritabbo. Navakatarena bhikkhunā therataro bhikkhu ‘bhante’ti vā ‘āyasmā’ti vā samudācaritabbo.

I'm not sure why he translates āvuso there as "reverend" -- I'm used to thinking of it as meaning 'friend'.
But the point is, here again Ven. Sujato translates bhante as "sir" -- and the Buddha tells the monks to use that form (or āyasma
) when they address senior monks (and lay people may use it for any monk) -- it's not a form reserved exclusively or specifically for the Buddha himself.
Or if not exactly "obedience", when people do use it I think it's sometimes polite and conventional -- a sign of respect -- and/or related to the practice of exclaiming (or feeling) "Sadhu!" (see e.g. the answers to this topic).

Another thing is that bhante and similar words are pretty explicitly honorifics.
And that is a sense which the word "Teacher" doesn't accurate translate, even if you prefer it because you imagine that would please other people, who don't want to express especial honour or devotion -- like using "comrade" in a communist society to emphasise that everyone is socially equal (e.g. "As you say, comrade teacher"), i.e. to emphasise that the Buddha "only a man" -- though for some people "teacher" is implicitly an honorific too.
There are many/various honorifics available in English:

"lord" (religious and secular)
"sir" (secular and military)
"excellency" (bishops and heads of state)
"holiness" (supreme religious leaders: the pope, orthodox patriarchs, the dalai lama)

To some extent none of these are exact translations: because their "meaning" derives from the context in which they're used, and in English they're used to refer to people other than the Buddha.
To some extent any of them are more-or-less adequate translations -- they mean more-or-less approximately the same thing, the difference being a difference in register -- "Lord" is a word from the frozen (static, literary) register:

Frozen: Also referred to as static register. Printed unchanging language, such as Biblical quotations, often contains archaisms.

"Sir" is more from the current (modern) register, although still formal and explicitly polite.
Because of the difficulty in translating -- i.e. most any Pali word can probably be translated by more than one English word, approximately but not exactly correct -- I begin to learn and recognise the Pali words. These Pali terms are then loanwords used as a specialized or technical vocabulary.
If you look at this translation of SN 56.11 for example it uses (quite of lot of) Pali words in its English translation, perhaps because there's no exact translation into English ...

On one occasion, the Bhagavā was staying at Varanasi in the Deer Grove at Isipatana. There, he addressed the group of five bhikkhus:

... but you can hover (with a mouse) or click on the links, to see a definition.
IMO these ('foreign') words then acquire meaning from the context in which you read them (and from the people who use them).

Some other characteristics, epithets, honorifics applied to the Buddha are listed here:

These characteristics are frequently mentioned in the Pāli Canon as well as Mahayana teachings, and are chanted daily in many Buddhist monasteries:

Thus gone, thus come (Skt: tathāgata)
Worthy one (Skt: arhat)
Perfectly self-enlightened (Skt: samyak-saṃbuddha)
Perfected in knowledge and conduct (Skt: vidyā-caraṇa-saṃpanna)
Well gone (Skt: sugata)
Knower of the world (Skt: lokavida)
Unsurpassed (Skt: anuttara)
Leader of persons to be tamed (Skt: puruṣa-damya-sārathi)
Teacher of the gods and humans (Skt: śāsta deva-manuṣyāṇaṃ)
The Blessed One or fortunate one (Skt: bhagavat)

The tenth epithet is sometimes listed as "The World Honored Enlightened One" (Skt. Buddha-Lokanatha) or "The Blessed Enlightened One" (Skt. Buddha-Bhagavan).

There is one sense in which the Buddha is a lord in the wikipedia sense. He is the lord of the truth, the authority of the four Noble Truths:

MN18:13.1: “Addhāvuso kaccāna, bhagavā jānaṁ jānāti, passaṁ passati, cakkhubhūto ñāṇabhūto dhammabhūto brahmabhūto, vattā pavattā, atthassa ninnetā, amatassa dātā, dhammassāmī tathāgato.
MN18:13.1: “Certainly he is the Buddha, who knows and sees. He is vision, he is knowledge, he is the truth, he is holiness. He is the teacher, the proclaimer, the elucidator of meaning, the bestower of the deathless, the lord of truth, the Realized One.

Here, dhammassāmī is lord of the dhamma (see comments below as well...)
And here is an example of Lord Buddha speaking as a lord:

SN12.26:3.4: Saying this you would repeat what I have said, and not misrepresent me with an untruth. You would explain in line with my teaching, and there would be no legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism.

The word "lord" in that context, appears to be "sāmī" (definition: sāmī：Lord，master，owner； husband).

Thank you. I've added your link since the one in SuttaCentral has an apparent typo. I've flagged it for the Ajahns.

You can look up the dictionary for "dhammassāmī" and also  "sāmī". So that's "dhamma" + "sāmī".

I guess Venerable Sir would the most neutral best translation.? That make mutual benefit to all. Word as a lord people would think it's a Deity or God that would bring prosperity and wealth by worshipping mostly by Asian mindset

@littlestar Actually, if we are talking about Dhamma, then I would have to say Lord of the Dhamma. In all other contexts other titles might apply. There is no higher authority of the Dhamma than the Buddha.

Here, sami is svami, sva-amin = own-proprietor.

I've decided to just refer to the comments in the response rather than trying to paraphrase everything. Thank you all!

"dhammassāmī" is probably best translated as Master of the Dhamma or Master of the Teachings, rather than Lord of  Truth.

That might be a discussion to be had elsewhere with the Venerable translators. For example Bhante Sujato regularly edits his translations. Perhaps you might explain that on SuttaCentral Discuss & Discover and see what Bhante replies? For my part, "Lord" is fine since I would defer to the Buddha in anything to do with the Dhamma.

After some thought and search, I found a quote that illustrates why "Lord of the Dhamma" is an appropriate appellation for the Buddha. He is not the lord of us, but he is the Lord of the Dhamma. Sariputta was a master of the Dhamma, but the Buddha is the Lord of the Dhamma.