text:
Is there a circular reasoning in origin of consciousness?
Dependent Origination says, given the consciousness, name and form arises.
But in SN12.65 it says name-form is condition for consciousness:

When consciousness exists there are name and form. Consciousness is a condition for name and form.’
‘viññāṇe kho sati nāmarūpaṁ hoti, viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpan’ti.
Then it occurred to me:
Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, etadahosi:
‘When what exists is there consciousness? What is a condition for consciousness?’
‘kimhi nu kho sati viññāṇaṁ hoti, kiṁpaccayā viññāṇan’ti?
Then, through rational application of mind, I comprehended with wisdom:
Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, yoniso manasikārā ahu paññāya abhisamayo:
‘When name and form exist there’s consciousness. Name and form are a condition for consciousness.’
‘nāmarūpe kho sati viññāṇaṁ hoti, nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇan’ti.

My question is : Is there a circular reasoning in dependent origination of name-form and consciousness?

Can you identify what "circular reasoning" you're asking about -- what or where are you saying might be circular?

@ChrisW It is circular in the sense that consciousness leads to name and form and name and form leads to consciousness. I thing name and form leads to six senses, which have consciousness of course but I think consciousness itself comes before name and form according to DO.

I was going to ask exactly what ChrisW asked. Since I'm late,
that consciousness is a condition for name is obvious but can you explain how consciousness - or anything else - is a condition for form?
Are you suggesting 'form' cannot exist without being somehow percieved?

Yes, in my understanding it is circular.
But first let us clarify our definitions.
Translating vijnana as consciousness is misleading. Vijnana is differentiated subjective experience. In other words, it's a "parsed" experience of a situation: "This is my bedroom at night, I can see my bed, the clock, and the humidifier".
Furthermore, in context of DO namarupa does not refer to the mind-and-body. It literally means name-forms or simply "notions" - our ideas of objects like bedroom, night, bed, clock, humidifier.
Now you can understand the meaning. A newborn baby does not yet have an experience of the bedroom. Everything is mixed up, there's no separation. The baby does not understand anything, does not know where it is and what's around.
Then, gradually, over a long time, it accumulates thousands or millions of observations, until it starts forming very vague ideas about its world: this is the mother, this is where she comes through (there's no notion of the door yet), eating feels good, and so on.
At first the baby's namarupas are very primitive, very vague - and so is the baby's vijnana. As more and more namarupas are established, identified, and acquired from repeated interactions with the environment - the vijnana gets more and more detailed, nuanced, and robust. As vijnana gets more detailed, the baby's interactions with the environment get more interesting and its desires get more complex. This, in turn, leads to more namarupas getting established.
It goes like this, cyclically, iteratively, with samskaras (behavioral tendencies), vijnana (differentiated experience), and namarupas (notions of forms) supporting and feeding each other as they grow and mature.
The rest of the DO sequence is a further development of the same material. We are talking about samjna, vedana, tanha, upadana, and so on — but all of them are "made from" samskaras, namarupas, and vijnana — just more specialized. Our mental world gets more and more detailed until we are trapped in it.

Can you please provide me the link to the dictionary where it says that "vijnana " is consciousness? I think "vinnana" is consciousness. I searched the pali dictionary for word "vijnana". There is no such word. https://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/v/vijana/

Vijñāna is Sanskrit, in Pali it is spelled viññāṇa

This is purely speculative and based on my understanding. Vinnana mentioned at this stage is a relatively primitive consciousness that is inner focused and do not interact with the external environment. Through a process of identification and association (namarupa), it starts to associates various sensory inputs from different sense organs. Similarly, the mind also learns to disassociate sensory inputs based on their sensory sources.
An example would be a foetus that is developing. Initially, the consciousness is internal and is unaware of the external environment. As its sense organs began to develop, skin, ear, tongue and so on, sensory inputs start to be received. A long process of learning, identifying and associating ensue. With the developing sense organs providing more inputs, the mind identifying and utilizing these inputs thus further strengthening the development of the senses. Eventually, the mind evolves to a point where it is aware of and interact with its external environment.
It is scientifically known that sense organs that are not utilized eventually devolve. The mutually supportive nature of our senses and consciousness is a clue to how a higher consciousness can emerge from a lower albeit primitive state.

SN 12.65 begins with the statement: "Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening". Therefore, SN 12.65 is a primitive/very early explanation of Dependent Origination. Here, Dependent  Origination is not traced back to ignorance. Therefore, when Gotama asked the question: ‘When what exists is there consciousness? What is a condition for consciousness?’; the answer was nama-rupa (the mind-body). This answer is not spiritual. Instead, this answer is more biological/neurological. This answer is similar to SN 22.82, which says the cause (hetu) & condition (paccaya) of consciousness is nama-rupa: "Name-and-form is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate".
However, later, the Buddha traced the condition of consciousness to the three sankhara (kaya, vaci & citta sankaro), which are conditioned by ignorance. The twelve conditions of Dependent Origination in SN 12.2 is the full explanation. SN 12.65 is a partial explanation. We should not cause ourselves the common confusion of imputing SN 12.65 upon SN 12.2.
It has been answered for other questions that consciousness cannot arise without a condition, thus:

In MN 38, the condition for the arising of consciousness is the sense bases.

In SN 22.53, the condition for the arising of consciousness is the other aggregates.

In SN 12.65 & SN 22.82, the condition for the arising of consciousness is nama-rupa.

In SN 12.2, the condition for the arising of consciousness is sankhara.

In MN 43, consciousness cannot arise without feeling & perception.

Therefore, it is best to not get caught up in the common obsession about SN 12.65 referring to a "circular" relationship between consciousness & namarupa in Dependent Origination. Instead, it is best to simply view SN 12.65 as another explanation of how consciousness cannot arise without a condition and how Dependent Origination is not about a disembodied independent consciousness that leaps/relinks in life to life reincarnation.
From the very beginning, the Buddha warned us to not fall into the obsessions & corruptions of worldly priests & money chasing monks, who seek to look for any opportunity to manufacture ideologies about reincarnation. The Buddha was clear that consciousness is not a pseudo soul (atman; jiva) that is reincarnated over many lifetimes. There is one sutta where Mara searches for the consciousness of a dead monk. It is Mara that believes consciousness reincarnates from life to life. Where is the Buddha taught consciousness depends upon rupa (materiality).

this is right. form and consciousness co-arise, so the circularity is just a slowing down of the same thing..

There is this mysterious line from DN14:
‘This consciousness turns back from name and form, and doesn’t go beyond that.’
It's spooky and it gives me the sense that consciousness is looking for a body, but the noble ones have denied it such - the form has been severed and we are dealing with a formless world.

This just means our entire world of subjective experience (vijnana) is bounded by our notions (namarupas). There's no experience beyond notions.

yeah both are plural but that's too obvious to discuss.

now that's too difficult for me, let it be.


text:
What is the precise analysis of SN 22.85 & SN 22.86?
SN 22.85 says:

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling,
perception, volitional formations and consciousness taken together as
the Tathagata?”—
“No, friend.”

“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering [unsatisfactory]; what is
suffering [unsatisfactory] has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
impermanent is suffering [unsatisfactory]; what is suffering [unsatisfactory] has ceased and passed
away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
“Good, good, friend Yamaka!

Are the two excepts above contradictory? What is the precise analysis of SN 22.85 & SN 22.86 here?

Aren’t you going to give us a hint?

No, Its a question for everyone.

My feeling is that tathagata is not an I so all those statements are reasonable.

SN 22.86 says

In the past, as today, what I describe is suffering and the cessation
of suffering.”

It is quite clear that form , feelings , perceptions, choices and consciousness are not me , mine or myself.
Further it also clear that it will be wrong to say that Self is apart form , feelings , perceptions, choices and consciousness. This is so because it assumes existence of absolute Self . First Self needs to be defined in order to deny or accept the form , feelings , perceptions, choices and consciousness as me , mine or myself or not me , mine or myself.
Only  suffering and path leading to the end of suffering is described . Form is suffering, feelings are suffering, perceptions are suffering, choices are suffering and consciousness is suffering.
Why is it suffering? Because form is impermanent , perceptions are impermanent, feelings are impermanent, choices are impermanent and consciousness is impermanent.
Sabbe Dhamma Anatta , means , All conditioned and unconditioned phenomenon are not self.  There is no absolute understanding of not self . It must be seen in the context of Dhamma.
When someone says that there is Self or Atta then it must be asked , what do you call self ? Which Dhamma do you call as Self? And then it must be concluded that that Dhamma is not-self.

why not take your own advice? don't define self -> define not-self

@blue_ego Don’t define self doesn’t imply define not-self.

I believe the translator (Bhikkhu Bodhi) comments on that section as follows:

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, is form permanent or impermanent?” - “Impermanent, friend.”… - “Therefore … Seeing thus … He understands: ‘…there is no more for this state of being.’
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the Tathāgata?” - “No, friend.” - “Do you regard feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness as the Tathāgata?” - “No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathāgata as in form?” - “No, friend.” - “Do you regard the Tathāgata as apart from form?” - “No, friend.” - “Do you regard the Tathāgata as in feeling? As apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in consciousness? As apart from consciousness?” - “No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness [taken together] as the Tathāgata?” - “No, friend.” [112]
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathāgata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?” - “No, friend.”

Notes:

Spk: At the end of this teaching on the three characteristics Yamaka became a stream-enterer. Sāriputta asks the following questions to examine him and to get him to show that he has given up his wrong view.
Spk glosses tathāgata here as “a being” (satta), which I think does not quite hit the mark. I take the subject of the discussion to be, not a being in general, but the arahant conceived as a being, as a substantial self. Thus the catechism will show that Yamaka has abandoned his identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi) regarding the arahant, and therewith his view of the arahant as a self that undergoes annihilation. We find a similar transition from the arahant (vimuttacitta bhikkhu) to the Tathāgata at MN I 140,3-7 and I 486-88.
The first three alternatives—conceiving the aggregates individually as the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata as within the aggregates, and the Tathāgata as apart from the aggregates—correspond to the first three modes of conceiving in the Mūlapariyāya Sutta (MN I 1), which are set in relation to the sense bases at 35:30, 31. The fourth position conceives the aggregates collectively as the Tathāgata (perhaps a view of supervenience); the fifth conceives the Tathāgata as entirely transcendent, without any essential relation to the aggregates. These modes of conceiving can also be correlated with the twenty types of identity view.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is Nibbana an asankhara?
There are three closely related words in Pali , namely, Sankhara, Sasankhara and asankhara.
They are mentioned in the following sutta :
==============
“Bad, unskillful qualities, mendicants, arise with conditions, not without conditions.
“Sasaṅkhārā, bhikkhave, uppajjanti pāpakā akusalā dhammā, no asaṅkhārā.
By giving up those conditions, those bad, unskillful qualities do not occur.
”Tesaṁyeva saṅkhārānaṁ pahānā evaṁ te pāpakā akusalā dhammā na hontī”ti.
==========
My question is : Is Nibbana an asankhara?

Nibbana is unconditioned (asankhata).

Now at that time the Buddha was educating, encouraging, firing up, and
inspiring the mendicants with a Dhamma talk about extinguishment.
Tena kho pana samayena bhagavā bhikkhū nibbānapaṭisaṁyuttāya
dhammiyā kathāya sandasseti samādapeti samuttejeti sampahaṁseti.
But since there is (atthi) an unborn, unproduced, unmade, and
unconditioned, an escape is found from the born, produced, made, and conditioned.
Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi ajātaṁ abhūtaṁ akataṁ asaṅkhataṁ,
tasmā jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṁ paññāyatī”ti.
Ud 8.3

There are many quotes to express this, such as:

Birth... Old age and death are impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away, and cease.
Jāti... Jarāmaraṇaṁ, bhikkhave, aniccaṁ saṅkhataṁ paṭiccasamuppannaṁ khayadhammaṁ vayadhammaṁ virāgadhammaṁ nirodhadhammaṁ.
SN 12.20

the unborn, unaging, unailing, undying, sorrowless, uncorrupted supreme sanctuary from the yoke, extinguishment
ajātaṁ... ajaraṁ... abyādhiṁ ... amataṁ .... asokaṁ ... anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ...  nibbānaṁ
MN 26

Also, while Nibbana is unconditioned, it exists. The suttas say:

There exists, mendicants, that sphere... Nibbana
Atthi, bhikkhave, tadāyatanaṁ... Nibbana
Ud 8.1

Lastly:

There are these two elements:
Dve imā, ānanda, dhātuyo—
the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.
saṅkhatādhātu, asaṅkhatādhātu.
MN 115

A lot of confusion arises dependent upon treating nibbana as a conceptual mental object dependent upon mind. This ^^^ leads to lots of confusion. An analogy describing this confusion is a man dying of thirst who refuses to drink life-giving water because the man dogmatically believes water is a mental concept rather than a suffering-free reality.

You have neither denied nor accepted the fact that Nibbana is asankhara… what is your opinion on this ?

The word 'asankhata' has the same meaning as 'asankhara'. 'Asankhata' is a past participle, meaning "unconditioned". 'Asankhara' sounds like it is an adjective in present tense meaning "without conditions".

Therefore, to apply the quote to Nibbana. (i) Nibbana does not "arise" ("uppajjanti"). Instead, nibbana "exists" ("atthi").  (ii) Therefore, nibbana does not arise with conditions. (iii) Instead, Nibbana exists without conditions. (iv) Nibbana is asankhara, i.e., without conditions.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu The Image of Nirvana

We all know what happens when a fire goes out. The flames die down and
the fire is gone for good. So when we first learn that the name for
the goal of Buddhist practice, nirvāṇa (nibbāna), literally means the
extinguishing of a fire, it’s hard to imagine a deadlier image for a
spiritual goal: utter annihilation. It turns out, though, that this
reading of the concept is a mistake in translation, not so much of a
word as of an image. What did an extinguished fire represent to the
Indians of the Buddha’s day? Anything but annihilation.
According to the ancient brahmans, when a fire was extinguished it
went into a state of latency. Rather than ceasing to exist, it became
dormant and, in that state—unbound from any particular fuel—diffused
throughout the cosmos. When the Buddha used the image to explain
nirvāṇa to the Indian brahmans of his day, he bypassed the question of
whether an extinguished fire continues to exist or not, and focused
instead on the impossibility of defining a fire that doesn’t burn:
thus his statement that the person who has gone totally “out” can’t be
described.
However, when teaching his own disciples, the Buddha used nirvāṇa more
as an image of freedom. Apparently, all Indians at the time saw
burning fire as agitated, dependent, and trapped, both clinging and
being stuck to its fuel as it burned. To ignite a fire, one had to
“seize” it. When fire let go of its fuel, it was “freed,” released
from its agitation, dependence, and entrapment—calm and unconfined.
This is why Pali poetry repeatedly uses the image of extinguished fire
as a metaphor for freedom. In fact, this metaphor is part of a pattern
of fire imagery that involves two other related terms as well.
Upādāna, or clinging, also refers to the sustenance a fire takes from
its fuel. Khandha means not only one of the five “heaps” (form,
feeling, perception, thought fabrications, and consciousness) that
define all conditioned experience, but also the trunk of a tree. Just
as fire goes out when it stops clinging and taking sustenance from
wood, so the mind is freed when it stops clinging to the khandhas.
So the image underlying nirvāṇa is one of freedom. The Pali
commentaries support this point by tracing the word nirvāṇa to its
verbal root, which means “unbinding.” What kind of unbinding? The
texts describe two levels. One is the unbinding in this lifetime,
symbolized by a fire that has gone out but whose embers are still
warm. This stands for the fully awakened arahant, who is conscious of
sights and sounds, sensitive to pleasure and pain, but freed from
passion, aversion, and delusion. The second level of
unbinding—symbolized by a fire so totally out that its embers have
grown cold—is what the arahant experiences after this life. All input
from the senses cools away and he/she is totally freed from even the
subtlest stresses and limitations of existence in space and time.
The Buddha insists that this level is indescribable, even in terms of
existence or nonexistence, because words work only for things that
have limits. All he really says about it—apart from images and
metaphors—is that one can have foretastes of the experience in this
lifetime, and that it’s the ultimate happiness, something truly worth
knowing.
So the next time you watch a fire going out, see it not as a case of
annihilation, but as a lesson in how freedom is to be found in letting
go.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu The Image of Nirvana

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


text:
Do anesthesiologists (and doctors in general) earn merit
Do doctors earn merit on a regular basis as a result of their good acts of treating and curing illnesses of their patients? Is their profession an excellent one because of their chance to earn merit?

It is rather the motivation than the act that determines how much merit is accumulated.

There are many kinds of Doctors. There are greedy doctors. There are doctors who treat patients at nominal fees, they are saintly. There are Paramedics, they treat at the level of consciousness. There are technological Doctors, they treat using AI and automatic robots. There are uneducated doctors. There are ayurvedic doctors, Allopathic doctors , Muslim doctors , Chinese Doctors.The list of types of Doctors can be as big as the diversity of characters found in the world.
Not all doctors can be called good.
Doctors , patient , diseases , treatment are a result of combination and separation in time and place. For example-Some treatments are only possible in USA. Some treatments are only possible in future.
But all combinations and separations are impermanent.
Consider the Dhamma of Doctor: Treat all patients without discrimination.
However this Dhamma can not be Self. Why ? Because the Sankharas of Doctor are impermanent. Form of Doctor is impermanent, Feelings of Doctor are impermanent. Perceptions of Doctor are impermanent. Choices of Doctors are impermanent. Consciousness of Doctors are impermanent.
Therefore it is not a good idea to get attached to the idea of Doctor. In the end the cravings to exist in any form , feeling, perception, choice and consciousness must diminish and eventually end.

Thank you for the answer. However I should have been more specific in my framing of the question. Assuming that the doctor is a good person, with no history of inflicting harm on others or violating of the precepts is generally a good person. All things considered, would his/her treatment of patients and curing them of their illnesses considered a meritorious act?

@NithinManmohan As I said Doctor ,no matter how good, is not worth calling Self because form,feelings,perceptions,choices and consciousness of all doctors are impermanent.

As stonux' answer says, it's the intention that's meritorious -- the act of doing good because of that intention, preserves the merit (see The Essence of Merit).
My guess is that when someone says, "I want to become a doctor", the intention is, "because I want to help people", which I think is generous.
Secondly, Merit - A Study Guide talks about developing "a wise sense of self". It seems to me that a doctor has an opportunity to do that -- to see that the body is impermanent, and what it "requires", and so on.
So I think that answer is yes, but also no -- because I'm not sure you could say that "all" doctors earn merit, nor "on a regular basis", nor because of their "acts". It is my experience, though, that many of them seem to be well-intentioned, and I suppose that their profession gives them opportunities for meritorious activity.
Even so I think (I don't want to find the reference) that the suttas say that (monks') giving dhamma is more meritorious than other activities, such as (doctors') giving medical advice.


text:
Did Buddha acknowledge "reductio ad absurdum" argumentation & other apriori forms of reasoning in Buddhist logico-episteomology (looking for sources)?
It is well known that many Buddhist philosophers and scholars of various traditions, such as Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti rely on and acknowledge reductio ad absurdum as a method of positing arguments and discussing different forms of knowledge.
On the Wikipedia page regarding Buddhist logico-epistemology, it is stated:

K. N. Jayatilleke sees Buddha's epistemological view as a kind of empiricism which also includes a particular view of causation (dependent origination): "inductive inferences in Buddhism are based on a theory of causation. These inferences are made on the data of perception. What is considered to constitute knowledge are direct inferences made on the basis of such perceptions."[13]: 457  Jayatilleke argues the Buddhas statements in the Nikayas tacitly imply an adherence to some form of correspondence theory, this is most explicit in the Apannaka Sutta (MN 60).*He also notes that Coherentism is also taken as a criterion for truth in the Nikayas, which contains many instances of the Buddha debating opponents by showing how they have contradicted themselves.[13]: 352–353.  He also notes that the Buddha seems to have held that utility and truth go hand in hand, and therefore something which is true is also useful (and vice versa, something false is not useful for ending suffering).[13]: 359

However, on that same page, it is stated:

According to Jayatilleke, 'pure reasoning' or 'a priori' reasoning is rejected by the Buddha as a source of knowledge.[13]: 273  While reason could be useful in deliberation, it could not establish truth on its own.

This is slightly confusing to me because if you are subscribing to some of the views mentioned in the first paragraph (and some other Buddhist concepts more generally), there is no way to defend them in a purely posteriori way. Thus, at least some apriori reasoning is necessary in order to even begin establishing other principles used throughout Buddhist philosophy and worldview which are considered truthful. Reductio ad absurdum is one such way of establishing truth in an apriori way.
As such, does Buddha see reductio ad absurdum as valid forms of argumentation and deriving truth, and if not, how does he argue for different concepts without relying on apriori reasoning?
I just want to clarify that in this case, I am saying "reductio ad absurdum" to mean the following: reductio ad absurdum argument is showing that non-acceptance of some X would result into a complete incoherence and any non-acceptance would simply not be sound and coherent, and hence, it necessarily must be accepted for anything other than its affirmation is not possible. In other words, non-acceptance of some X concept or idea would result in a self-refuting idea logical fallacy. And as noted above, it seems that Buddha subscribed to the notion that contradiction is not acceptable. So I think it would only make sense if Buddha affirmed reductio ad absurdum for there can be situations where anything other than embracing and accepting some idea X would result in complete incoherence, and this is technically done in an apriori and deductive manner but according to Jayatilleke, Buddha rejected apriori argumentation so it doesn't make much sense.
I hope that what I wrote is clear. I'm a beginner and interested in learning Buddhist concepts. If something I wrote is incorrect, please let me know and I will change it.

Good time of the day. Please do not have extended conversions in comments. Thank you for your cooperation.

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.

All concepts which Buddha discusses are based on experience. There is no a priori reasoning involved. Buddha says come and experience yourself. All reasonings are rooted in experience. However there is “reductio ad absurdum” or proof by contradiction.
For example - Theory of Anatta or not-Self.
You do not begin by assuming Self. But you begin by asking , what is that which you call self ? Is it forms ? Or is it feelings ? Or is it perceptions? Or is it choices ? Or is it consciousness?
Then the question arises , Is form permanent or impermanent? Are feelings permanent or impermanent? Are perceptions permanent or impermanent? Are choices permanent or impermanent? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?
The answer is ,impermanent ,for all the above because all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. It is an observed fact of existence which can be experienced by anyone.
Then we argue that , if form is impermanent then is it suffering or not ?
If feelings are impermanent then is it suffering or not ? If perceptions are impermanent then is it suffering or not ?
If choices are impermanent then is it suffering or not ? If consciousness is impermanent then is it suffering or not?
The answer is yes, it is suffering. If the answer is yes then is form , feelings , perceptions, choices and consciousness are worth calling Self?
The answer is no. Therefore all conditioned (and unconditioned) phenomena are not-self.
What we assumed as Self turns out to be not-Self.

Is not saying that "one should trust one's experience" itself an apriori idea, assuming that our experience is trustworthy? Isn't affirmation of non-contradiction an apriori idea? "All concepts which Buddha discusses are based on experience" Why can you trust such an experience? What if it never even happened? I'm curious as to how Buddhists answer such questions. In my view, these things need to be grounded in apriori-derived principles through reductio ad absurdum in order for anything posteriori to even be able to stand. I will look into this a bit more.

Oh and you never showed a source for your statements.

@setszu  yes. One should trust one’s knowledge. Knowledge is gathered by experiencing reality. There is a consequence of knowing in terms of experience. You should trust the knowledge. If you can’t trust the knowledge then experience it yourself. Experience will teach you that Buddha is right. Knowledge is like a Sun which will arise no matter how dark the night is. Once knowledge is verified through experience you can built upon it. There is no need to assume anything, it will unravel itself.

"One should trust one’s knowledge" why? You didn't answer my questions regarding thing. "Once knowledge is verified through experience you can built upon it" - what about knowledge which is presupposed for verifying empirical knowledge, but can't be empirically verified itself? How does Buddhism deal with that? "There is no need to assume anything, it will unravel itself" - I mean, the whole point of apriori and deductive proofs is to not assume anything, but rather prove it, so that knowledge can be grounded in something and not collapse into incoherence and radical subjectivism.

Here is the definition of “a priori” -“A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed.” .Anatta reasoning is not a priori. It is based on experience.  Buddha is all about experience. There is no knowledge without experience. However you can utilise others experience without getting into the trouble of verifying yourself.

I guess an example of "proof by contradiction" is in the 2nd or 3rd sutta, i.e. Anattalakkhaṇasutta (SN 22.59)

The Buddha said this:

“Mendicants, form is not-self. For if form were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ But because form is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’

Hm, it might show that, but it's shown in a posteriori way (observation of form and experience of "self" and affliction), right? The question's focus is really on reductio ad absurdum argumentation in the context of apriori proofs. Having said that, application of this in a posteriori way might imply validity and necessary basis in an apriori way for it to even be applicable, so it might count???

I think the "a priori reasoning" is, our "self" is under our control, and if something is "self" then it is under our control. The observation is, form is not under our control. The conclusion or argument is, therefore it is not fit to view the form as self.

If your "philosophy" is meant to be entirely a priori, then I suppose Buddhism is more like a "science", in that its reasoning is based at least in part on "observation" or "experience".

It's not really what I'm saying. I'm saying that observation and experience rely on things which cannot be empirically proven, and thus must rely on apriori proofs. Empiricism must be grounded in proper apriori demonstrations for any of it to be valid. The argument you provided applies this logical principle (needs to be shown apriori) towards something observable (posteriori). This is not an issue as long as the structures which are used for demonstrating your posteriori conclusion are sufficiently demonstrated in an apriori way (which is really the only way for them).

Buddhism to me seems to covertly presuppose certain ideas and structures which can only be shown deductively/apriori. There's nothing wrong with that though, as long as its sufficiently demonstrated.

Jayatilleke says that Buddha rejected apriori reasoning, but Buddha evidently used structures which can only be shown through apriori reasoning. In fact, Buddha implicitly affirms them IMO. I dont have access to his book, but the only way I can square this is to assume that by "apriori", Jayatilleke is talking about analytic apriori (to use Kant's language). Perhaps, Buddhas view is similar to Hume: "...there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction."

If that is the case, then I don't necessarily have an issue with the Buddhist view because this is the whole point of reductio ad absurdum-type proofs. And like I said, there is a history of them being used in Buddhist traditions, I just wanted a source for Buddha himself (if possible).

I was trained as a mathematician, not a philosopher. I'm used to the idea of axioms etc. but I'm not making sense of what you're saying. It seems to me that Buddhism is unusually useful because it's practical (prescriptive), and "speaks to" to human experience (e.g. of "suffering"), and yet is general/universal (maybe a.k.a. "timeless").

What do you find confusing?

I'm not talking about usefulness of Buddhism or anything like that. In fact, I'm not sure how anything I said gave you that impression (but since you brought it up, I want to say that I can make an argument that all of those things you said regarding Buddhism are applicable (perhaps even more so), to other (multiple) belief/knowledge systems, but this is all besides the point, and I don't want to sound like I'm being offensive to Buddhist faith so I hope I'm not coming across as disrespectful).

Oh maybe bc in Buddhist epistemology, truth=useful? Even if I accept that, lies can be useful too, so I don't think it can be a differentiating factor. But surely I'm oversimplifying the Buddhist concepts here, so if I say something wrong, I'd appreciate a correction.

Well a lie is almost axiomatically "wrong". One justification for the prohibition is here ("when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I tell you, he will not do") but there are probably other practical reasons too. There's a causal chain explained here which suggests that "skilful virtues" are (what I might call) useful because they result in freedom from remorse etc.

The word "useful" isn't especially Buddhist, I don't think -- it's a word from my own bias.


text:
Sensing vs Knowing inhalation and exhalation in Anapana according to Goenka Tradition
I have been following Goenka tradition of vipassana for a few months now(one 10 day retreat and 5 months of daily practice). We are instructed to keep our attention below the nostrils and observe the flow of breath (i.e., just know that you are inhaling or exhaling). My problem with the instructions is that I can feel the sensations under my nostrils, but I don’t understand what that sensation means i.e., if it is inhalation or exhalation. For the longest time, in an attempt to figure/know what the sensation corresponded to, I think I was controlling my breath, which proved to be counterproductive as I was having trouble breathing normally. Even extending to normal day-to-day affairs. I tried using harder breaths, longer breaths, but I never could go beyond understanding that there is sensation under my nostrils.
I understand that it is for building shamata, and the knowing of if the sensation corresponds to inhalation or exhalation doesn’t matter that much. But I am assuming there is a reason the instruction is a certain way. Am I doing something wrong. Any help is appreciated.
I read that the Mahasi tradition emphasises keeping the attention on the rising and falling of the belly, but I don’t think I am ready to mix traditions yet. Does anyone know what might be happening here or have any suggestions on what can be done to help better my practice.

If the mind cannot clearly discern the respective sensations at/in the nostril as in-breathing and out-breathing, then simply rest/place a finger on the top of the lip so the sensation of each out-breath can be clearly felt striking on the finger.
Similarly, if the mind cannot clearly discern the respective rising and falling of the belly, then simply rest/place a hand on the belly so the movement of each in-breath and out-breath can be clearly felt moving the belly.
Therefore, at the same time, both a finger can be placed under the nostril and a hand can be placed on the belly. This will allow/help the mind more clearly know when the body is breathing in and when the body is breathing out.

That makes sense but that is a lot of arm movement bringing it up to the nose like that. It should be ok for a beginner though as long as they are mindful of the arm moving.

Maybe some Mahasi teachers or retreat locations can be said to mass market but the intention of Mahasi Sayadaw was that his interpretation of the Buddha’s teaching was to be given on a dana basis.

The point of this exercise is to become attuned to the presence or flow of energy/sensation in the body (I think the technical term is virya). It's isn't about feeling the air pass over the skin under your nose; it's about the energy/sensation that occurs within the body and is stimulated by the act of breathing. In that sense, the inability to distinguish in-breath from out-breath isn't a problem. It's an insight: a gateway to understanding that the energy/sensation of the body isn't tied to or dependent on the physical act of breathing. It's more like the swirl of smoke from a candle-flame, that is moved by the passage of air but not part of it. You can then extend that notion of energy/sensation to the rest of the body, even places where it makes no sense to talk about the physical flow of air in breathing.
Thinking of it as the air of breath passing over the frenulum is a constructive misconception: the best way someone can understand until they understand better. It may be time for you to move on from that.

Goenka claims that the Vipassana technique he teaches is the pure one which was lost by all other teachers. There is absolutely no evidence for this claim. In fact, if you look at Goenka’s teacher, and his teacher’s teacher, you will note changes already happening within a century! So it is exceedingly unlikely this was the pure technique passed down by the Buddha.
If you actually take a look at the Pali Canon, you will see that what Goenka teaches does not line up with the best (and quite good) actual historical record we have of something close to what the Buddha may have actually taught.
So you don’t need to be worried about “mixing traditions.” You might be interested in the following video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bcMC0iGGyFk&pp=ygUGU3VqYXRv . It is quite long, but one of the key points is that the Buddha did not seem to care that much about the technique of meditation, he was more concerned with how you used whatever technique you had.
So if focusing on the upper lip is not working for you, do not be afraid to focus somewhere else on the body.

No, the main purpose of breath meditation is not to develop samatha. Collection of sutta passages on breath meditation here:
https://lucid24.org/sted/16aps/index.html
The main purpose is to counter the tendency for most people to engage in senseless thinking. Breath awareness is a way to root your attention in a skillful Dharma and prevent the mind from wandering in unprofitable directions.
So in whatever way one can be aware of the breath, at the nostrils, abdomen, in any body part, or the whole body simultaneously, as long as it brings the awareness to the breath and any skillful Dharma and away from the mind's tendency to become deluded and wandering, then the purpose has been served.
Step 3 of the the 16 steps is also important to understand correctly. 'sabba kāya patisaṁvedi', is to become senstive to the sensation of breath in the entire physical body. Not restricted to nostril, or abdomen, or any other small part.

What is your definition of Samatha? I always just translated it as concentration, any kind of concentration.

DPD (digtal pali dict.) has:samatha 1.1
masc. (+gen) stilling (of); serenity (of); calming (of); settling (of); peace (of); (comm) mental unification [√sam + a + tha] ✓
grammarexamplesdeclensionroot familycompound familyfrequencyfeedback
samatha 1.2
masc. (+gen) (vinaya) settlement (of); deciding (of); appeasement (of); adjudication (of) [√sam + a + tha] ✓

samatha is an important ingredient of samādhi, but it is not equivalent to it. samādhi ("concentration") in EBT (early buddhism) means the mind is undistractible, lucid (seeing reality clearly without distortion).  Samatha, if you wanted to equate it with something, would more closely match the passadhi awakening factor (pacification, deep relaxation).

Seeing a concept clearly isn’t seeing the reality human beings didn’t make up clearly. Right?

How do you see impermanence when your looking at a concept?

“Paramattha” reality is indeed present in the Suttas,  the earliest recorded teachings of the Buddha. “Paramattha” refers to ultimate or absolute reality, as opposed to conventional or relative reality. The distinction between these two levels of reality is fundamental to understanding the Buddha’s teachings on the nature of existence and the path to freedom. Am I missing something?

what does this have to do with samatha?

You know, samatha puts all other thoughts, feelings and other distractions aside to focus on either sammuti or paramatha truth/reality. Sammuti is conceptual reality and paramatha is the reality that human beings don’t make up AKA ultimate AKA experiential reality AKA what is. If you never tasted an orange Samutti can describe it but the actual taste in the moment that it happens is paramatha reality/truth/experience. It’s always personal experience except there isn’t any person at the level of moment by moment paramattha experience. That is where you see anatta.

Anapana just knows conceptual qualities about the breathing that you’re conceptual mind makes up given the moment by moment information on the breath. This is good for building concentration before you practice Vipassana.
If you are practicing Vipassana and not strictly anapana then you just know the non-conceptual experience of the breath. It should feel warmer when it comes out and cooler when it comes in and that is not conceptual when it’s happening. Don’t worry if you can’t see everything so clearly at first. That is how everyone is when they start out even 5 months later.  Don’t try to breath or not breath in any particular way and if it seems you are still controlling then it’s ok as long as you’re practicing correctly. If you don’t worry about it because you know that you are practicing correctly, you have good faith or confidence in the practice, then that feeling that you’re controlling the breath should stop but even if it doesn’t, good practice isn’t always comfortable.
Really, what is controlling the breath? This is where you might start deeply seeing how you aren’t in control. Anatta. Don’t worry if things seem counter productive as long as you’re practicing correctly.

That's not according to the suttas. What you're describing is anapana and the samatha vipassana corrupted by LBT (late buddhist teachings), later Theravada corruptions in the dhamma.

think about it. The breath is a physical process! You have to be sensitive to a physical body to be aware of physical processes. When you start believe LBT redefinitions where kāya (body) gets redefined as "collection of only mental factors devoid of physical body", you have to ask yourself whether you should be trusting teachings that came 500-1000 years later after the buddha's death and contradict his original teachings.

What do you think I got wrong exactly? I never said that kaya was a collection of mental factors. Although I do have confusion about namarupa and what exactly a pairwise occurrence is.  Also, the critiques I have seen on the Visudhimagga seem extremely biased. Obviously, Buddhagosa had helpers and they had different ideas about heaven and Maitreya.

How are you going to downvote another approach to Buddhism that maybe you don’t understand? You must understand everything then? You don’t see any ego laying around over there? What if you’re right? That could really swell that ego up. Walking around all swollen. I want to be wrong in a way so that I can learn and not be all puffed up.

Paramatha is fundamental to the deep understanding of the  Buddha’s teaching. You don’t understand?

which suttas does the term 'paramatha' appear in?

Its because you or your body is not calm enough or healthy enough to experience natural breathing. Your tendency to DO is strong.
However the faculty of knowing never get hindered.
At present you know that there is breathing. Though you are struggeling to reflect this knowledge at sensation level.
Just contemplate that you are alive. And no one can remain alive without breathing. Rest in that knowing.
This knowingness is sufficient enough for you. Mindfulness just is. Mindfulness can not be more or less.
At the same time you are also aware that breathing is gross. Its not smooth enough to be discerned as satisfied.Thats all.
Once you give up tendency to control it. It will get smoother depending on health,precept and consistency of mindfulness.
As you particularly said difficulty of differentiating in and out. Try just differentiation between one direction to other. Instead of labeling in and out. Just lable change. It may be that what you think is IN may be  Out and vice versa.
Its anicca. Not in your control. Hence dukkha. Stay in this discernment.
At the same time if you wish there are various ways to inprove sensatios
(1) try to differentiate left and right nose breathing.
(2) keep changing and narrowing /widening  area at nose.
(3) try forceful breathing for a while.
(4) try to hold breath for a while.
(5) do some pranayam like kapalbhati, deep breathing in advance.
(6) exercise.
(7)change food habit.
(8) take ayurved medicine.
(9) kriyayog.
(10) jalneti. And yogasana to improve it.

Some people just have differently shaped noses. I can put a finger to my upper lip, breathe very hard, and still not feel much of anything, because the shape of my nose is such that the air exiting it does not strike my upper lip.

Sensation of breath is not by striking on upper lip. It is either by touch on passage or by feeling the pressure. Mainly by very tiny hair in nose.

But if its too tough, i suggest go for chest or belly movement.

But again, some people might not have the same types of nose hairs in their nose, and when the breath is soft there may be no discernible change in pressure if one has stiffer nose cartilage.

People like to claim that some people may not feel the breath near the nose because the mind has not become subtle enough yet, but in reality certain people just have different body types and they may never be able to feel the breath there no matter how subtle their mind is. There is nothing spiritual or magical about the nose.

Yes exactly. They can go for belly, chest, abdomin movement. In fact, after sometime you can feel whole body is breathing. There are body semsation all over body related to in breath and outbresth. This is becasuse the enenrgy movent  is in sync with breathing.

Some people feel whole body isocong up and dow. I am very good at nose breathing. And i also see that my whole body enemrgy is fully in simc. I balace my left and right body energy by balancing left and right nose even left and right braim are represented by nose.

And by the way in 4th jhana rg here is no breathing at all.

If you improve it I will switch from disliking it to liking it


text:
Buddha's Teachings on Life's Purpose and Existence
I have been ruminating about some existential questions...."what is purpose of life"...."is there a creator"..."what is the best work for a mortal to undertake in their lifetime"...."is suffering from unnecessary burden of study or job justified if they are not bringing satisfaction but are necessary for social survival"... etc, etc.
In what sutta(s) has Blessed One talked about this matters? what solution Master gave to get out of this vicious cycle (referring to the vicious cycle of "ruminating about some existential questions.")which drains the energy?

It would be good to clarify your last question as there is ambiguity right now. What is the referent when you say "this vicious cycle?" It is possible you are referring to the vicious cycle of "ruminating about some existential questions." On the other hand, it is possible you are referring to something else by "this vicious cycle which drains the energy" such as "daily-life" which you tagged in your question. The two are not necessarily referring the same.

Ask a Monk: Is there a purpose in life?
https://youtu.be/Vs7MsSPSrdI?si=3WAykwXhl8kysBT_

This question is most excellent in its clarity & lack of ambiguity.
The Buddha's Teachings say Life's Purpose and Existence  is to perform good deeds.
For example, Dhammapada 53 says:

As from a great heap of flowers many garlands can be made, even so should many good deeds be done by one born a mortal.

The Pali word literally translated as 'mortal' above is 'macca', meaning 'subject to death'.
If good deeds are not done, what follows from (upapajjati) this waste of life is hell.

About not purposelessly wasting life, the Buddha said:

Faith and ethical conduct are kinds of wealth,
Saddhādhanaṁ sīladhanaṁ,
as are conscience and prudence,
hirī ottappiyaṁ dhanaṁ;
learning and generosity,
Sutadhanañca cāgo ca,
and wisdom is the seventh kind of wealth.
paññā ve sattamaṁ dhanaṁ.
When a woman or man
Yassa ete dhanā atthi,
has these kinds of wealth,
itthiyā purisassa vā;
they’re said to be prosperous,
Adaliddoti taṁ āhu,
their life is not in vain [not wasted].
amoghaṁ tassa jīvitaṁ.
So let the wise devote themselves
Tasmā saddhañca sīlañca,
to faith, ethical behavior,
pasādaṁ dhammadassanaṁ;
confidence, and insight into the teaching,
Anuyuñjetha medhāvī,
remembering the instructions of the Buddhas.”
saraṁ buddhāna sāsanan”ti.
AN 7.6

Listen as I am going to provide an answer which is woven by my own mind taking threads from here and there (from Buddha and Krishnamurti). But I found a solace into it. I am by no way a Blessed One,but there is a possibility(though scarce) of it happening in future, so till that auspicious day occur there is a need to be ready for it.
Below are three great questions which are asked in question.

What is purpose/meaning of life ?
Do I need to Suffer for survival?
Best way to live?

This questions are called 'Existential Questions',they are like a fire, if controlled then can result into creation else can be fatal. Nitzche died of it!
The Sabbasava Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 2[11]) also mentions 16 questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self.

Whoever speculates about these things would go mad & experience vexation -acintita sutta

Vaccha, [any of these views] is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding -Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

Therefore, o monks, do not brood over [any of these views] Such brooding, O monks, is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. ādibrahmacariyaka-sīla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and Nibbāna, etc. - samyutta sutta

But these should not be taken as permit to suppress this questions else they will catch you when you least expect them and break havoc. Better understand that Purpose or meaning is creation of mind,life is reality. Flowers don't have purpose nor do mountains yet they are alive and do exist in peace. Life has no purpose nor meaning but has beauty, why not experience it?
This is called philosophy of Existential Nihilism. But accepting that life as whole is pointless brings great suffering hence Buddha straight away avoided talking on it,( But it was due to Compassion as I think ) for me I think it's perfectly ok to embrace 'Absurdism'.
Suffering is avoidable to some extent. In cognitive psychology it is well received that addictions are outcomes of brain creating pleasure hormones when receiving certain sensations. All suffering is result of attachment or Karma.

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the origin and the passing away of suffering. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of suffering? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving. This is the origin of suffering.

“In dependence on the ear and sounds … In dependence on the nose and odours … In dependence on the tongue and tastes … In dependence on the body and tactile objects … In dependence on the mind and mental phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving. This is the origin of suffering.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of suffering? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving comes cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; with the cessation of existence, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This is the passing away of suffering.
“In dependence on the ear and sounds … In dependence on the mind and mental phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving comes cessation of clinging … cessation of existence … cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This is the passing away of suffering.”
-Dukkha Sutta

The best way to live is embrace life fully, but with no attachment and meditation. The Noble Eightfold path should be followed but not by taking second hand meanings of original pali terms, I realise that each one should act independently without accepting any authority, hence what is 'samyak' for you should be found out by you yourself.
At last everyone should find his own light, teachings of Masters like Buddha and Krishnamurti are just fingers pointing towards Truth you have to walk by yourself to reach there.

“Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection…” - J Krishnamurti.

Why are you answering your own question? Seeded questions are not allowed according to the sites rules: https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1572/13375

See here again: https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1785/13375
That is one of the moderators for this site and was written many years ago. Since then we've routinely had this abused and it has caused many problems.

@YesheTenley I am not interested in argument, if it's not acceptable by community they will take decision and I don't care about it, I did what I thought was good! And this site had feature for it!

As a moderator I can confirm we don't welcome certain kinds of self-answered questions, particularly when the user posts a question with the sole purpose of posting an answer. Asking a genuine question and answering it at a later time if happened to find an answer elsewhere is allowed.


text:
Are monks and lay people 100% allowed to sell sacred, consecrated or blessed images and objects?
I learned that the monks of a monastery draw and consecrate or bless sacred images and then resell them.
Is all this permitted by the law of dharma?
Don't we fall into materialism by commodifying the things of the spirit?
I wonder the same thing about other objects, statues, malas, etc...

Good question.
The Vinaya Pitaka (Code of Ethics/Conduct for Buddhist bhikkhus/monks and bhikkhunis/nuns) clearly state that the ordained and novices cannot deal with money. They are not allowed to handle money, leave alone sell stuff in exchange of money.
If monks in a monastery are making goods and selling them, then is there a particular reason why they are doing so? Is the Abbott of the monastery allowing this for a purpose and for what duration of time?
In one of the Suttas, Buddha had mentioned that in the future, there will be monks in saffron and yellow who will not follow the teaching as mentioned by the Tathagata, who will have large followings and indulge in non-Dharma activities. Buddha also predicted that Buddhism would decline and disappear in 5000 years. We have crossed 2600 years since the inception of Buddhism, and we can already see a steep decline.

I understand, but what about the lay people who create these works, blessing them and then selling them? Is all this acceptable from an ethical/spiritual point of view according to Buddhism?

I just studied about the Tibetan Ten Sciences. One of the Major Sciences is the Science of Fine Arts and Crafts, which allows monks and laypeople to create, build, or manufacture things to facilitate people in their daily tasks or to provide people with service to make their (people's) lives easier. There is a long list of things that a Buddhist can create, build, or manufacture, both on the Dharma and about worldly things. Few among them are building idols, stupas, and monasteries, painting the faces of idols; building houses; farming; trading and commerce, and so forth.

I don't think problem is with people who are selling such commodities problem is with those purchasing it.

"Demand is the driver of economic activity; it is the spark that ignites the engine of the market, setting in motion the forces of production and exchange." - John Maynard Keynes

Merchants are simply doing there duty.
The people who demand such commodities are same people who are responsible for fall of all the Great Masters. I don't find even a single suttra in Pali Canon in which Buddha declared himself any kind of God or Supernatural Entity. There is no point in worshipping Buddha, this will be greatest disrespect to Teachings of Tathagata.
Selling Idols or using Dharma for personal gain is similar to destroying it,but it's the reality of society we live in, all the Knowledge from east is getting converted into commodities and sold in west. Yoga, Advait Vedanta or Zen are all getting converted into business.
This is excerpt from talk of Acharya Rajneesh (though I don't really agree with his way but I find his teachings worthy of respect).

The buddha is the most dangerous person in the world. That is why the world either kills the buddhas or worships them. These are synonymous: killing is a way of getting rid of them; worshipping is also a way of getting rid of them. When you worship a buddha, you are saying, "You are born a buddha, we are poor human beings. At the most we can put two flowers at your feet. Just leave us alone, we have so many other things to do." This is also a very cultured way of creating distance. That is why in every culture, either they have killed such people or they have said that they are incarnations of God. "It is easy for them. We are human beings, with all kinds of frailties, weaknesses; we cannot do it." Just to create a distance, so many stories have been created. And I have been wondering continually why no psychologist has the guts to go into those stories and expose what is hidden behind them. For example, Gautam Buddha was born when his mother was standing under a tree.Now, no woman has ever given birth to a child standing. Perhaps this was some accident, a kind of abortion. But the story is that Buddha was also born standing. As he came out of the womb, he stood on the earth, and the first thing he did was to take seven steps a newborn baby taking seven steps and then declaring, "I am the greatest buddha in the world."Now, the people who were creating these stories were trying to create a distance between themselves and these awakened people. They were not ready to accept them being as human as they are because then a great responsibility arises. If a human being can become a buddha, then what are you doing? Then it will be a great weight on the chest, it is better to put these buddhas as far away as possible. If you go to a Jaina temple you will see a strange thing; there are twenty-four Jaina tirthankaras, Jaina gods. All their ears are so big, the earlobes so long, that they are touching their shoulders. That is one of the signs that a man is a tirthankara. You cannot find anybody who has such long lobes unless he goes through plastic surgery or some kind of massage continuously milking a cow. like But why does this kind of thing happen? - just to make them different from you.

Buddha's message was most clear and scientific of all contemporaries or old ones.
There's one more aspect to His Dharma that is Rebellion. Buddha was not alone, the whole movement was there in India against the orthodox school of thought. Orthodox religion of that time in India - Vedic Tradition was degenerated and such things like using Dharma for exploiting others was prevalent. The Shramana movement revolutionised the prospects of the social and religious dimensions of ancient India in such a way that even after many centuries these traditions continue to attract humanity across many countries.
Shramana traditions in ancient India were brought about by the ascetics who renounced worldly life to search for the truth about life and the universe. They included many groups, sects and varieties of opinions. The most famous among them were the Buddhists, the Jains, the materialist Lokayatas and groups like the Ajivikas.
In the Brahmanical order the Brahmins were privileged as intermediaries between deities and followers, and were considered the protectors of the sacred learning found in the Vedas. The Shramanas rejected the authority of the Brahmins and opposed the ritualistic orthodox ideas of the Brahmanas.
All the Shramanas sects denied the supremacy of philosophies of Vedic texts. Some of them like Budhha and Mahavira got enlightenment through meditation and after realising truth propagated the right way of life to their followers.
In conclusion the foundation of Buddhism was not enlightenment or such fancy stuff;  It was a Rebellion against the orthodox religion which had flaws just like
"monks of a monastery drawing and consecrating or blessing sacred images and then reselling them".
This is no way should be acceptable by any one who has lived teachings of The Blessed One.


text:
How does the doctrine of pratītyasamutpāda interact with Dhammapala's interpretation of nibbana?
The doctrine of pratītyasamutpāda states that:

all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". The basic principle is that all things (dharmas, phenomena, principles) arise in dependence upon other things.

However, on the Wikipedia page on Nirvana, it is stated:

According to Dhammapala, nibbana is an objective reality which is the opposite of samsara. Nibbana has its own nature (sabhava) which is unlike all conditioned phenomena.

From this, I'm curious to know the following inter-related ideas: a) Is all there is to reality these conditioned Dharma and if yes, where does Dhammapala's idea of nibbana fit into this if its a non-conditioned phenomena which an intrinsic essence/nature? b) In the view of Dhammapala, are all conditioned phenomena ultimately dependent on this Absolute and Objective Reality which has an intrinsic nature? Does nibbana originate anything itself or is it merely like a principle? Just as an idea, perhaps the doctrine of the Two Truths is related to this, with nibbana belonging or being identical to the Ultimate Truth.

According to Wikipedia, Dhammapāla was a great Theravada Buddhist commentator. All I personally know about Dhammapāla is his later commentary about the finer supramundane points of DN 1 (about eternalism & annihilationism) was correct, in contrast to the earlier commentary attributed to Buddhaghosa, which was incorrect. Based on this limited evidence, my impression is Dhammapāla understood the teachings found in the Pali Suttas.
The Pali Suttas (MN 115) explicitly say there are two types of dhammas (phenomena) or elements (dhatu), namely:

conditioned element (sankhata dhatu)

unconditioned element (asankhata dhatu).

Therefore, in many places, such as in Ud 8.3, the Nibbana element is explicitly described as 'unconditioned'.
To the contrary, SN 12.20 explicitly says every condition of Dependent Origination is 'conditioned'. Furthermore, SN 12.3 literally says Dependent Origination is the wrong path (micchāpaṭipadā); therefore not related to Nibbana.
Therefore, in Pali Buddhism, the reality of Dependent Origination does not apply to Nibbana.
It follows, it would have been obvious for Dhammapala that all conditioned phenomena are not ultimately dependent on the absolute and objective reality of Nibbana (which has an intrinsic nature). It would have also been plainly obvious to Dhammapala that Nibbana does not originate anything itself. Nibbana is the "escape" from the conditioned rather than the creator of the conditioned. Again, Ud 8.3 says about Nibbana:

There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks
there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could
not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned.
But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned,
therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and
conditioned.

In conclusion, the impression is the writer of Wikipedia pratītyasamutpāda was wrong.

Fantastic answer!

You're welcome. Thank you


text:
Is Right Concentration equivalent to the Four Jhanas?
Point 8 of the Noble Eightfold Path is "Right Concentration". According to Wikipedia and at least some of the (Theravada-leaning) books I have read, with Right Concentration the Buddha meant the first four Jhanas (Rupa Jhana).
To what extent can one say that Right Concentration is the same as the Jhanas?

Does it depend on tradition? AFAIU the Mahayanas do not like to talk about the Jhanas so much, so they might feel such a statement to be too narrow.
Is there a Sutta which makes this connection clear?

In the Pali Suttas, Right Concentration is literally the four jhanas:

And what, monks, is right concentration? (i) There is the case where a
monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful
(mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture &
pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought &
evaluation. (ii) With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations,
he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of
concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought &
evaluation — internal assurance. (iii) With the fading of rapture, he
remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the
body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones
declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' (iv) With
the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance
of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana:
purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This,
monks, is called right concentration."
Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path

The above being said, obviously Right Concentration (the Four Jhanas) cannot be developed from wrong concentration. Therefore, there is a basis for Right Concentration that can also be called 'right concentration', namely, any state of concentration established from the letting go of craving (according to having Right View of the Four Noble Truths). Therefore, other statements about right concentration in the Pali Suttas include:

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters & remains in the first jhana....
SN 48.10

The Blessed One said: "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions. Of those, right view is the forerunner.
MN 117

In summary, whenever the mind is continuously focused on the absence of craving and attachment, this is right concentration. Eventually, this state of mind will result in the Four Jhanas, if continuously maintained for long enough. Refer to Ajahn Brahm's book The Jhanas.

Note: various concentration exercises, popular in Theravada Buddhism, such as found in the Visuddhimagga, are essentially forms of wrong concentration, because they are not based in the letting go of craving.
It follows that Mahayana, including Zen, generally instructs to abandon craving and attachment, such as developing Clear Light Mind or Just Sitting (Shikantaza). These Mahayana practices can lead to Right Concentration.

In the Pali Canon, the Buddha describes three doors to Nibbana: appanihita (desireless, aimless, undirected, nonintentional), animitta (signless) and sunnata (emptiness). Elsewhere in Pali Canon we encounter three types of concentration  (samadhi) that go by the same exact names: appanihita-samadhi, animitta-samadhi, and sunnata-samadhi. Even though the three samadhis are never explicitly equated with the doors, they are described as "leading to the unconditioned". This and the fact that samadhis and doors have identical names makes me think each of the doors must be approached by mastering its corresponding samadhi.
SN 43.4:

And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned? — The emptiness concentration [ie sunnata samadhi], the signless [animitta] concentration, the undirected [appanihita] concentration: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned…

The fact that these samadhis are described as "leading to the unconditioned" indicates they must fall under Right (Sama) Samadhi, not Wrong (Micca) Samadhi.
For me, this is enough evidence that the Right Concentration is not limited to the Four (rupa) Jhanas. For additional arguments against that view, see Analayo's 32-page comparative study.
I hope this answers your question.
As to the nature of these samadhis per Pali Canon, unfortunately only the signless concentration is described in any detail at all. The descriptions are rather very basic (not attending to any signs) but thanks to MN121 and various secondary clues in other suttas we can understand that signlessness refers to following the Arupa Ayatanas until the complete transcendence of semiosis.
The situation is more dare with the other two samadhis for which we have even less information. We have no choice but to rely on clues and inference.
My interpretation of the available clues is that the "desireless" door is approached through the Four Jhanas, with the fourth jhana being the appaṇihito-samadhi itself.
This is implicitly supported by the following list of samadhis that lists the three samadhis alongside the jhanas. Here's the passage (annotations in square brackets are mine):
SN 43.12:

And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned? —Concentration with cognitive placement and affective pondering [i.e. the first jhana]: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned.
—Concentration without cognitive placement , with affective pondering only [the second jhana]…
—Concentration without either cognitive placement or affective pondering [the third jhana]…
—Emptiness [sunnata] concentration…
—Signless [animitta] concentration…
And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned? —Undirected [appanihita] concentration [the fourth jhana?]: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned.

As you can see, identification with the first three jhanas is obvious based on their distinct reference to vitakka-vicara. The animitta samadhi is associated with the Arupa Ayatanas, we know that much.
Now, if you correlate this list in 43.12 with a description of practice in SN 47.10 it becomes rather clear that the first three jhanas are considered "directed" (paṇidhāya or paṇihita), followed by appaṇidhāya bhavana, culminating in the fourth jhana which therefore is appanihita-samadhi. This conclusion is further supported by the allegorical imagery in AN 5.28, where the directional pro-sukkha aspect of the first three jhanas is symbolized by the images of water, and the equanimous aspect of the fourth jhana is compared to the white towel wrapping a bather after the bath.
The final door to Nibbana is called "emptiness" (sunnata). Emptiness is explained in the Pali Canon as the absence of self. In my understanding the Emptiness Samadhi is attained through a deep contemplation of the three marks of existence in relation to the five skandhas and all other dhammas.
The nature of sunnata samadhi, or the concentration on emptiness, involves a profound realization and absorption in the understanding that all phenomena are devoid of inherent existence, or 'empty' of self-nature. This realization comes from seeing that all things arise dependent on conditions and do not exist independently. When one develops sunnata samadhi, they focus on this emptiness, looking at experience without projecting intrinsic nature or essence onto phenomena.
Meditatively, the practitioner in sunnata samadhi would be engaging in a form of deep contemplation that relinquishes all notions of intrinsic identity in the observed objects, sensations, thoughts, and experiences. This is not merely an intellectual exercise but a focused meditative absorption where the mind is collected and unified in the experience of emptiness. The process can involve gradually letting go of attachments to the sensory world, mental constructs, and even the sense of a personal self, leading to an experience of liberation and peace.
For a textual reference see e.g. in KN PS 1.1:

When he knows and sees correctly that eye is void of self or what belongs to self or anything permanent or everlasting or eternal or not subject to change, then his knowledge turns away from misinterpretation of (insistence on) eye...

This passage from the Khuddaka Nikaya illustrates the principle of voidness or emptiness as applied to the sensory experience (in this case, the "eye"). It reflects the recurring theme in the Pali Canon that true knowledge, or wisdom, includes the insight into the absence of an enduring self or essence in sensory and mental phenomena. Here, the understanding of voidness is directly linked to the knowledge that turns away from incorrect perceptions or interpretations of the nature of experience, including the clinging to the notion of a self or anything permanent.
In the context of sunnata samadhi, such a passage reinforces the idea that the concentration on emptiness involves a direct and clear seeing of phenomena as they are - void of self and not subject to misinterpretation or delusion. By realizing that the aggregates (such as the eye, in this example) are empty of intrinsic existence, practitioners detach themselves from the illusion of permanence and selfhood, which in turn leads to a "turning away" from ignorance and towards wisdom, ultimately guiding them on the path toward liberation (Nibbana). This process of realization aligns with the nature of sunnata samadhi, in which one meditatively dwells in the recognition of the emptiness of all conditioned phenomena.
I hope this was an inspiring foray into the world of Samadhis in Pali Canon.
Whether or not I'm correct about all the details, it seems clear that the four (rupa) jhanas are not the sole meditation technique included in the Right Concentration. Arupa Ayatanas culminating in Signless Concentration and Three Marks of Existence culminating in Emptiness Concentration are two additional ways to reach the Unconditioned.

Thanissaro: "Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness" www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html

That's a very well-known description based on a post-canonical commentary. I personally don't find it credible, or adding anything substantial (i.e. non-speculative) to the analysis of samadhis and jhanas. If anything, it confirms the little material available in the Canon. Realization of inconstancy is described as the key factor for transitioning from the signless absorption to Liberation in MN 121. The theme of stress vs. sukkha is central to the four jhanas, with the fourth transcending the dichotomy, and the connection between emptiness and not-self is well established in suttas.


text:
Right mindfulness
When I'm practising I've noticed that a thought arises but I am noticing this after the fact. With a sensation or sound I can notice it in that moment but thought seems to always be in the past. What is the correct way to be mindful of this?   Do I label the thought for what it was such as imagining, planning, worrying etc or do I notice that I'm remembering a past event and label what is happening as remembering?

If you notice a thought arising, that is the present moment. If you reflect on (think about) the arisen thought, then it is after the fact- fact of thought arisen earlier (which is being reflected upon now).
Your answer is in the correction (or rather clarifying it) of your question.
When you know a though has arisen, you are mindful of the present moment- of a thought arising. When you remember a thought from the past- and reflect upon it- you are mindful (in the present) of a remembrance.
But if you think about a thought of the past but not know it as such -a thought of past being reflected upon- then it is not right mindfulness. In fact, it is not correct cognition because the object of your thought in the now is conflated to be the same object of thought (in the earlier moment).

I totally agree with @HomagetoManjushri's answer. In addition, initially we might only realize there were thoughts only after the fact. As the mindfulness practice deepens, we begin to catch ourselves in the act of thinking and can choose to break or continue. When the mindfulness practice deepens, our mind quietens and becomes calmer even in the midst of our daily routine, it gets easier to spot random or stray thoughts as they are popping up.
I don't think there is a need to worry about thoughts being noticed only after the fact. As long as we continue the practice, our mind will begin to settle down like a peaceful lake. We will gain more composure against the large waves (strong mental and emotional forces e.g. feeling lonely, depressed or angry) as well as notice the obvious ripples easily. In fact, we may even notice there are small ripples caused by undercurrents (subconscious thoughts lurking behind) as well. The fact that we are aware of these active thoughts (conscious and/or subconscious) opens up choices in the way we think, speak and behave.....options that just weren’t there before due to our hardened habits.
One thing I would encourage is to differentiate the thoughts into 2 categories. Random vs repetitive. An example of repetitive thoughts are recalling and thinking about how someone had wronged us and/or was cruel towards us in the past. I find such repetitive thoughts tend to be a kind of habitual feeding by the mind and should be discouraged. In this case, I would be concerned that labeling such thoughts may end up encouraging more unskillful thoughts. Instead, I would think of ways to interrupt and quieten the mind. One possible way is to recall how in our long journey in samsara, we would have inevitably behaved just like that bad someone. It is merely about probabilities.
There are other ways and approaches; the main aim is to disrupt the habitual feeding of the mind so that it can quieten down, continue watching itself and how it is reacting to sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thoughts, feelings, perceptions and consciousness instead. Hopefully, this is helpful. With Metta.

You can label the thought either as 'imagining', 'planning', 'worrying' or otherwise as 'remembering a past event'.
Labelling the nature of thought is simply a method/technique for you to not get entangled in the thought (with either greed, aversion or self-view).
The purpose of labelling a thought is to stop the momentum & distraction of the thought.

Cool got it. Appreciate you taking the time to respond. Thank you so much.


text:
Does sotapanna still experience afflictive thoughts?
Does a sotapanna still experience afflictive thoughts and or engage in unwholesome activities etc or have they transcended such things?

For the most part, sotapanna do not engage in unwholesome activities or have afflictive thoughts because they have no doubt about the Path due to directly experiencing the peacefulness of abandoning self-identity view & associated unwholesome mental states. However, a sotapanna can have a lapse of mindfulness & insufficient wisdom, causing some minor affliction & minor unwholesome activity.
Some quotes from  the Pali Suttas about sotapanna are:

There is the case where a monk is wholly accomplished in virtue, moderately accomplished in concentration and moderately accomplished in discernment. With reference to the lesser and minor training rules, he falls into offenses and rehabilitates himself. Why is that? Because I have not declared that to be a disqualification in these circumstances. But as for the training rules that are basic to the holy life and proper to the holy life, he is one of permanent virtue, one of steadfast virtue. Having undertaken them, he trains in reference to the training rules. With the wasting away of [the first] three fetters, he is a stream-winner, never again destined for states of woe, certain, headed for self-awakening.
AN 3.86

The noble listener
succeeding in view,
a person who has overcome,
has thoroughly burnt off,
thoroughly given up that which is the greater pain,
of small measure is that which remains
not even a hundredth part does it come to,
not a thousandth part,
not a hundred-thousandth part
does it come to;
being here seven more times tops,
is of small measure compared to
that former pile of dukkha (suffering; affliction) of his
which has been thoroughly burnt off,
thoroughly given up.
SN 13.1

Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
AN 3.99

Yes a sotapanna may not be immune to conceit for example:

How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

Note that conceit is canonically a source or perhaps the source of conflict (such as arguing about points of Dhamma) -- assuming you even consider that "unwholesome activity" and "afflictive":

Wikipedia: Māna

And a sottapana may not have (yet) uprooted other afflictions or fetters, including sensual desire, ill-will, etc.

Wikipedia: Lists of fetters


text:
Is Nirvana a goal or a process, shaping the pursuit of enlightenment and a meaningful life?
In examining the Buddhist doctrine of 'Nirvana,' a scholarly critique emerges. Does Nirvana, often portrayed as the ultimate goal, withstand rigorous scrutiny? Can it be dissected as a concrete destination, or is it a nebulous concept, resistant to precise definition? This critical inquiry prompts an exploration into the interpretive challenges, potential inconsistencies, and scholarly debates surrounding the elusive notion of Nirvana within Buddhist philosophy.

Please don't post questions in order to answer them yourself. This policy (against self-answered questions) is unlike the policy on other SE sites. The policy was decided on Meta, e.g. here and here. Not many users (in total) voted but a majority of least of the current moderators voted against it.

Is Nirvana a goal or a process, shaping the pursuit of enlightenment and a meaningful life?

Nirvana is a goal. One should work/walk towards it and achieve it.

Buddhism's main theme is, being in the present. Which gives the ability / enough concentration to see the truth. (see/understand four noble truths.)
Buddha only speaks of the past, to let people know how other people walked the path to Nirvana.
Budda has only spoken about the future very little because it is less meaningful. (Only normal(us) misguided people think the future is the most important.)
Buddha only encourages us to be in the present, which is the only path to Nirvana.
How to be at present?
Buddha teaches how to be in the present all over the Damma. (Buddha's teachings.)
It's about concentration. It's about knowing what's going on in you, around you. (Not dreaming about the past and future.)
You can practice Samatha meditation to get absolute concentration.
(This is not the true purpose of Buddha's teaching.)
Now, One should use this concentration/ability to be in the present to understand the Four Noble Truths(Nirvana).
Which is vipassana meditation (The process of using concentration to understand the Four Noble Truths).
Which is the main goal of Buddhism.
Thanks . ☸.
Questions are welcome.

Like all of the True Dhamma, Nirvana can only be known by direct experience, as the Pali Suttas explain (e.g. AN 9.47).


text:
Origins of Theravada Buddhism
Namaste!
Speaking of Theravada Buddhism, I've seen some authors conflating what we know now as Theravada with the whole Sthavira Nikaya / Sravakayana. So they would say that extinct Sravakayana schools like Sarvastivada - Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Vatsiputriya - Pudgalavada are a part of the Theravada Buddhism itself. But I honestly doubt this is the case. I think what we call as Theravada Buddhism nowadays (or perhaps we can call it "Tamraparniya") is the only remaining sect of Vibhajjavada (which itself is one of many sects of Sthavira Nikaya / Sravakayana). Its doctrines was only codified by Buddhaghosa during 5th century CE. Even before 12th century, Buddhism in Sri Lanka wasn't even uniform. We had Mahavihara monastery where the orthodox Sravakayanins were centered, then we had Abhyagiri monastery where the Mahayanins were centered. If I remember correctly, it was during 12th century, a Sri Lankan king unified Buddhism in Sri Lanka with the Mahavihara monastery as the lead of Sri Lankan Buddhism, and then its teachings spread to the Southeast Asian nations (i.e Myanmar, Thailand,etc.). Would it be correct & safe to say that Theravada Buddhism (as we know today) actually originated from Anuradhapura Maha Viharaya in Sri Lanka?
Thank you!

Please refer to the book called Sects and Sectarianism by Ven. Sujato. There's also info on Wikipedia.
Apparently, the Mahavihara monastery used to maintain its orthodox views and was less open to accepting new ideas from India, while Abhayagiri monastery was open to accepting visiting mainland scholars and their ideas, including Mahayanists. But Abhayagiri was not necessarily a Mahayana monastery. Abhayagiri studied both Theravada and Mahayana, according to Chinese scholars.
These monasteries had to compete with each other and with other monasteries for the attention of the monarch and the laity. It was basically for survival.
Ven. Buddhaghosa apparently came from North India and may not even be Theravadin in origin. He came to Sri Lanka apparently because he heard that the traditional commentaries are best preserved in Sri Lanka. Eventually he became an important figurehead in Theravada and became a revivalist.
Ven. Buddhaghosa compiled existing works and also wrote new works. The Visuddhimagga was his magnum opus. He was like the Adi Shankara of Theravada Buddhism. He was with Mahavihara.
The term "Theravada" means "the path of the elders". You can say it simply means "orthodox" or "original".
The school that Mahavihara belonged to, was the Tamraparniya branch of Vibhajjavada. Using the term "Theravada" was a way to show that Mahavihara carried the original and authentic teachings of Buddhism, sort of like the term "Catholic" (meaning universal) in "Catholic Church".
The Mahavihara wrote the Dipavamsa, which tried to portray Mahavihara as the one true successor of the original Sthavira sect of old. So Theravada=Mahavihara is a view peddled by Dipavamsa. But is it right? I think it is exaggerated.
It's pretty much like some people considering humans to have originated separately from other animals. It's simply not true. Current humans are those that survived, but humans have had many evolutionary siblings, cousins and ancestors.
Similarly, Theravada of today is simply the evolved version that survived and it's closely linked to Mahavihara, and also linked to Abhayagiri.
The term "Theravada" started like an honorific term to show originality and authenticity but has now been repurposed to become the name of the subsect of Vibhajjavada, that has now survived.
This is my impression from reading the relevant chapter of the book, and also some Wikipedia pages.

I think there are two types of Theravada:

Whatever Theravada actually is.
Mainstream cultural Theravada, which originated from Buddhaghosa and Anuradhapura Maha Viharaya in Sri Lanka.

Whatever Theravada actually is includes the Sutta Pitaka, the Vinaya Pitaka, the Abhidhamma Pitaka and early treatise found in the Sutta Pitaka, such as the Patisambhiddhamagga.
In mainstream cultural Theravada, the Abhidhamma Pitaka and Patisambhiddhamagga are rarely studied & taught. This is probably because essential parts of them appear in conflict with Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga and also largely unrelated to the mass-market commentary called Abhidhammattha-Saṅgaha. For example, about the Abhidhamma Pitaka, the independent Australian scholar monk Sujato, who appears to share the Visuddhimagga view, said:

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons we know the “mind moment” AKA “one lifetime” theory of dependent origination is incorrect. In order to create such a theory, the Vibhanga had to change the text of the sutta. So the Vibhanga is, in essence, saying that the principle of dependent origination, which in the suttas deals with the rebirth of sentient beings, can also be abstracted out and applied in other contexts, such as the arising of phenomena in the moment, but to make that work we have to change certain terms and definitions. And of course that is quite correct. If we change things in DO, we can apply similar principles in other contexts. So long as we are clear, as the Vibhanga is, that that is not what the Suttas are talking about.
Sujato


text:
Kasina meditation details
From what I can gather, kasina meditation involves staring at the kasina initially, and then attempting to generate/visaulize it as a mental image. I believe this is how the Visudhimagga describes it. Are there any other older meditation manuals, perhaps like the Vimutimagga, or Abhidhamma, which describe kasina meditation in detail?
However, I have seen other sources which say one should focus on the retinal after-image.
What is the more traditional approach? I am aware that kasina meditation is not described in detail in the suttas. I would also prefer not this question to be derailed by the discussion of whether or not they were a late invention.
Thank you!

The fire kasina is the only one I know that uses an actual retinal afterimage.  It's probably the only one where that would even work, truth be told.  If you give it a try - a candle works very well - when you close your eyes you will notice a very distinctive, visual impression where the candle was.  Plainly, this just doesn't happen with the others.  If this is your first sojourn into kasina practice, I would actually recommend the fire kasina for that very reason.  It is much easier to work with a physical sensation than the visualized disks called for by the others.
But yes, what you describe is the gist of it.  It sounds mystical, but it's actually quite practical.  I also have to say that as a meditative method, I am a devoted fan despite being a Zen student of nearly 20 years.  I think you'll find that they demand that you very quickly learn to relax, let go, and quiet your mind.  If you don't it will be very difficult to maintain a stable image of the kasina. You also get immediate feedback on your practice.  You know, from moment to moment, how well you're doing and how stable your mind is.  If there's no kasina, there's no samadhi!

Do you have a canonical reference for the fact that the fire kasina uses a retinal afterimage?

There's none I'm aware of.  But try it.  It's fairly obvious.  The rods and cones in your eyes don't pick up enough light from a drawn kasina for that to work.  One thing I will say is that as you keep that retinal afterimage in your mind's eye, it will change - usually getting darker, turning red, etc.  Don't try to maintain the initial impression.  Just let it do its thing.

Did you try it yet?

Who's Daniel Ingram?