text:
What is sex without attachment to sense pleasure actually like?
What is sex without attachment to sense pleasure actually like? Does it feel different? Do you only ever have sex to please the other person? I'm asking both about the relationship and the act itself.
Clearly, you don't need celibacy to achieve jhana (some zen monks have wives). What is being renounced if we continue to engage in sexual relationships? Would engagement in sex with oneself (only) be proof that one cannot obtain the jhanas? etc..

For achieving these absorptions, the overcoming of the five
hindrances [including sensual desire], at least temporarily, is a preliminary condition. It is
especially in the context of achieving the absorptions that the Buddha
often mentions the five hindrances in his discourses.

I'm not sure that there is or can be such a thing as "sex without attachment".

I think you might want to reflect on what sex with attachments is like. Think of the kinds of attachments that commonly result from sexual activity:

There's greed or hunger, a craving for more, greater, different experiences of pleasure
There's pride and jealousy, the desire to declare one's conquests or to have what another has already declared
There's fear — fear of inadequacy, fear of loss, fear of shame, fear of commitment — and fear binds us to fight or flight

The pleasurable aspects of sex is not (in and of itself) problematic. But sexual activity is one of the most karmic activities we can engage in, because it explicitly and implicitly creates changes in our relationship to world around us, with everyone having to adjust to the new conditions. And resistance to change is at the root of all dukkha and tanhā.
Sex in the absence of attachments — well, let's call it 'dharmic' sex, though that term will likely get with disapproval — is actually quite natural. I mean, it's easy to lose track of both your 'self' and your partner's 'self' in the heat of the moment, though it's extremely difficult to keep the egoic self from snapping back into place after the fact (that's the goal of Tantric practices, but one shouldn't adopt those incautiously). At that moment, it isn't about pleasing your partner or yourself, because both of your egoic selves have been set aside. It's merely an open experience of pleasure, in which your pleasure and your partner's are intertwined and indistinguishable. It's not too different from the bliss that arises during jhana, though obviously the latter is more calm and focused, and much easier to maintain. Pleasure is a mental, experience, a result of liberation from the egoic self; the physical pleasure of sex acts as a catalyst for that mental liberation, much as the physical stillness of meditation acts as a catalyst.
If you want to achieve that catalytic effect through sex, you need to establish intimacy and trust with your partner. Intimacy and trust are functions of the egoic mind, yes, but they set the stage for that momentary release of egoic identity, we can't go into sex with fears, worries, and doubts and expect to be transported.

why is sex a karmic activity you describe?  changing relationships all around. why is that?

@blue_ego: Sex involves a range of choices about the very nature of our relations to others. It changes our relationship with our parents (loss of 'innocence' and entry into adulthood), certainly, and with our friends and acquaintances (who have to accommodate for our choices), and with ourselves (since we find ourselves pulled towards or away from certain lifestyles). And that's not even mentioning the possibilities of childbirth, or the question of abortion.

@blue_ego: Whether we like it or not, human relationships are not moment-by-moment, individuated, isolated events. They are more like a field that radiates in all directions, and when we make alterations to that field it affects everyone around us. And sex is a powerful human drive. If you think you can have sex with one person without creating emotional responses in everyone around you, you haven't been paying attention.

For monks and nuns, the full time professional practitioners seeking complete liberation from suffering, the advice given for food, craving and conceit is that relying on these, liberation is pursued, but these are to be abandoned upon complete liberation from suffering.
But sex is not relied upon and it's to be abandoned completely in the pursuit of complete liberation from suffering, by monks and nuns.
The Pali suttas have no notion of tantric sex or sex used in a way that leads to enlightenment. In other words, there is no sex without clinging to sensual pleasure, unlike food.

Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a
prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: “This
body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying
on food that food is to be abandoned.
“This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying
on craving that craving is to be abandoned.
“This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying
on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.
“This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual
intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the
Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.
AN 4.159

thanks for the answer. hopefully we can get more!

What is sex without attachment to sense pleasure actually like?

The sensory experience of sex or masturbation is at its root merely a physical experience. It is a body phenomenon common to humans with bodies. Sexual pleasure and sensations can be used as an object of meditation, not unlike the breath or a candle flame. Most people become absorbed in this merging with the meditation object and may lose awareness that this is all only consciousness and modifications of consciousness. For most humans, there is an arising of grasping when orgasm approaches. This can be transcended with practice, and the orgasm may be experienced as "no big deal."

Does it feel different?

I would say yes. Once the dissipative orgasms are transcended through yogic practice, regenerative orgasms become possible. These can be very different in body location, intensity, duration, and spacious involvement of others, than what most humans experience through common dissipative orgasms (those that once you have one, your desire to continue sex is diminished)

Do you only ever have sex to please the other person?

The deeper question is, what serves and liberates love and consciousness? What terms and conditions have you agreed to with your significant other in this area of sex? There are many factors, and in general, I would say "no" to only having sex to please others; however, if you are in a tantric consort relationship, you may, for the sake of growth and experimentation, trust your partner's guidance in this area sometimes more than your own discrimination and personal preferences.

What is being renounced if we continue to engage in sexual relationships?

You are renouncing any hope of sex ever fulfilling your ego, solving dukkha, or changing your basic nature.

Would engagement in sex with oneself (only) be proof that one cannot obtain the jhanas? etc..

No. It is a natural body function. It produces state experiences that may be attractive but do not resolve the existential pain of this realm.

It might happen that a Noble person gets mistreated against his/her will, not rejoicing even a second, such would be "sex" without attachment, without joy in sensuality. Beside that, all the mystic stories, and excuses of grave addicted, may one put the into the trash and seek after Brahmacariya, 8 precepts, if wishing for paths and fruits after liberation, good householder. Yes, there are many faithful householder who abstain from the low conduct of the villagers...
And no, without letting sensuality behind, there is no attainment of any of the four Jhanas. Strong attachment toward this leads downwardly and if one might gain human life, one would not find a pleasing situation, also in regard of inter-relations. Drop it. Not worthy anything at all.

I am asexual... I have nothing to add ha

Sex without attachment would be like scratching to feel itchy.
=====
The Buddha was more a bit more colorful in his teaching and compared the dangers of indiscriminate indulgence in sensual pleasures to embracing a burning bonfire:

AN7.72:1.6: “Mendicants, do you see that bonfire burning, blazing, and glowing?”

Sensual desire is quite powerful. And just like a bonfire, sensual desire also grows when fed and relished. Sensual desire is latent, like a tank of gas waiting for a match. For sexual pleasure in particular, our genes open up and give us access to that tank of gas at a certain age. We can't really be unattached to sensual desire without emptying that tank of gas.  Emptying the tank of gas is a bit of work, so putting more gas in the tank to light a fire seems a bit like scratching to get itchy. It would not makes sense.
Fortunately, sensual desire is the fourth fetter. There are three others fetters that precede the fourth fetter and with the relinquishing of each fetter, suffering decreases:

DN33:2.1.20: Five lower fetters:
DN33:2.1.21: identity view, doubt, misapprehension of precepts and observances, sensual desire, and ill will.

It is indeed good to consider others instead of only oneself. When we consider the welfare of others, we can let go of identity view.

I approach this question more from the Theravada tradition as well as my personal understanding. The reason why sex is such a powerful albeit intoxicating experience is because it involves all the senses i.e. sight, sound, smell, taste, touch and mind sense (feelings, perceptions, thoughts and emotions). This essentially creates an immersive sensual experience that is very addictive and, therefore, also very detrimental for the higher attainments as it anchors the mind strongly in the sensual realms. This is perhaps why tantric sex is so alien, in my view, to the Theravada tradition.
As far as the human or animal realm is concerned, I don’t believe it’s possible to experience sex purely through the mind sense i.e. without the pleasant inputs from the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. Even in the deva realms (up till kama-loka), there seems to be indication that if sex (or its counterpart) exists, it still involved the five senses as alluded in Sakka’s Palace of Victory.
As already mentioned by the questioner, that clinging to sensual pleasure is one of the five hindrances. It is therefore strange to believe that sex and jhana can co-exist without friction. There is a case mentioned in the sutta of a stream-winner, Isidatta, who was married and non-celibate but upon his death was declared by the Buddha as a once-returner. Still, this seems to indicate it is a rarity rather than a commonality for non-celibacy and the higher attainments (once-returner and above) to happen in a person concurrently.
What is important as mentioned in Migaslasutta, is that one penetrates the Dhamma (glimpse the Deathless) either through intuitive or intellectual (analytical) knowledge. Only then is there certainty upon death that one is reborn in a higher realm.


text:
Is expressing annoyance bad karma?
Is there a phrase for speech which doesn't hurt someone's feelings, isn't gossip or malicious (meant to harm them in some way), but is in some sense still wrong speech? A sort of indignant speech?

feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair
treatment.

Is it forbidden, bad karma? I understand that it is often unhelpful, but am unsure if it's neutral or wrong.

similar questions have come up before, but I wondered if anyone could tailor an answer to 'indignant'

When a wheel turns, it brings us passage with ease to new places. If there is sand in the axle, there is friction and resistance. Annoyance is felt as passage becomes difficult.
If two people are travelling by cart, one of them may notice difficulty and tell the other, "the wheel is not turning well."  At that point the other may respond, "this is a good place to stop and check". Or they might respond, "this is a bad place to stop and check". This is a simple and good interaction.
However, when identity view enters, things get messy. With identity view we might be frustrated and annoyed at not getting what we want and then we might look about for things we can fix. Looking about, we might notice that the person sitting next to us is happily sleeping and that happiness might make us feel even more annoyed. We might even be quite indignant at that person next to us. Being indignant, we might kick them off the cart. That is a poor interaction that leads to much suffering and has nothing to do with the wheel not turning well.
The trouble with identity view is that it limits us in mind, speech and body. Identity view masks and excludes others. Identity view asserts, "I am annoyed." Identity view is the sand on the axle that impedes smooth travel.
Putting aside identity view allows us to interact smoothly and effectively with others. We can turn to them for help in working on a mutually experienced problem. We might stop the cart. We might shake our sleepy friend awake and say. "There is a problem here and night is coming. Let us fix it together. Please help me lift the cart so that we may check the wheel."
Now shaking a happily sleeping person might be very annoying to them and they might be angry and resentful. But that, too, is identity view, "My happy sleep has been taken away and I don't like that." Identity view has not helped here either. A better reaction to being shaken awake might simply be, "what is happening?".
What's common here is that identity view leads to bad kamma and poor interactions.

MN129:1.6: The Buddha said this:
MN129:2.1: “These are the three characteristics, signs, and manifestations of a fool.
MN129:2.2: What three?
MN129:2.3: A fool thinks poorly, speaks poorly, and acts poorly.

Expressing annoyance is quite often counter-productive. If there is annoyance, there is a problem that we may need help with. And if we need to express anything, perhaps what works best is to communicate what is actually needed (i.e., "wake up, please. We have a problem.") as opposed to what is felt (i.e., "why are you sleeping happily and ignoring our problem?").
Expressing annoyance is often imprudent and foolish.

MN8:12.25: ‘Others will be irritable, but here we will be without anger.’

MN8:12.8: ‘Others will speak harshly, but here we will not speak harshly.’

MN8:12.40: ‘Others will be imprudent, but here we will be prudent.’

If help is needed, it is better to communicate the actual need, not the annoyance. Expressing annoyance often just spreads it around. Expressing annoyance provides little actual information--it is unhelpful. And because expressing annoyance is unhelpful, people won't be inclined to help, unless they are extraordinarily patient. Lack of help would then be the expected outcome (kamma) of expressing annoyance.
Expressing annoyance is not neutral. We commonly express annoyance in order to goad others to action. But there are better ways to goad others to action. Expressing annoyance is unskillful. Annoyance conveys urgency but no other information. That lack of useful information is what leads to "bad kamma".

MN129:2.3: Idha, bhikkhave, bālo duccintitacintī ca hoti dubbhāsitabhāsī ca dukkaṭakammakārī ca.
MN129:2.3: A fool thinks poorly, speaks poorly, and acts poorly.

The key phrase here is dukkaṭakammakārī, which may be understood as action leading to suffering (i.e., foolish).  Expressing annoyance falls under "speaks poorly". In that sense expressing annoyance is not prohibited by any specific rule, but presented as inadvisable in the context of poor speech (v.s. wrong speech).

I need a quote which relates it to karma. with metta

great answer now! can you quote something which says " dukkaṭakammakārī" leads to bad karma?

Hmm. Exact quotes with exact phrases are tough to come by. The Buddhist suttas are more like equations with variables. So the variable "poor speech" matches "expressing annoyance" here.  This is where other suttas provide assistance (e.g., "others will be irritable"). I've added the Pali quote for reference. As you can see it is broader in scope than "expressing annoyance".  You may also find this quote helpful: > SN42.1:2.8: So they don’t get annoyed by others, and don’t show it.

BTW, the word dukkatakamma is literally something like "suffering consequence".

that makes sense. I feel that it is foolish, but not bad karma... just not conducive to happy karma. thanks

Thanks for your question. I learned some new things myself. :D

No, good householder, not is not pleasing for others speech bad kamma, when right and acrually with wholesome mind. Given that right, and out of compassion, even harsh speech can be heaven leading conduct.
Not seldom the Buddha used harsh speech and not seldom declared his annoyance, yet good to keep in mind that 1. it was right, 2. out of compassion, 3. himself no faults, 4. unrelated, no trouble with possible bad reactions on it.
For example, my person often rebukes Nyom OyaMist here because of his poor and worldly biased ways to cite the Buddhas words from a Robin Hood-thief undertaking group. He and many, will think: "oh, what bad and unrighteous kamma, again, and again, by this monk." ... understandable?
At least he had learned that dukkatha, in the context of talking about virtue with unvirtuoes, about generosity, with a greedy... wisdom, with one without wisdom, isn't faulty but simply burdensome... yet still seeks to defend the "hot dogs for everyone Dhamma", as not willing to let go of pseudo-liberalism, authority-rejecting, and marx-ideas, wrong view of the basic one: equal we are... So here as sample to investigate and out of compassion Dispraise and "harsh speech" (gross to get one to mind)!
Usually those after "soft speech", are those who kill off and take ungiven simply hidden and silently and use "speak nice" to block off what goes against free consume and endanger beloved taken on stand, view.
It may "That lack of useful information", desired food, consume, yes. Like bitter medicine.
Summary: neither neutral nor wrong, but good and right, the highest, if spoken timely (when proper ocassion)
Maybe in addition good to know that one does not really have certain duty to help another out by using straight words, at least not in harsh way, if not in relationship, since in can take years, if even, till the message arrives.
May one try in saying for example, after good prove: "Jewish is actually the most fascist religion." on a consume page... dhammic correct will lead one apart from consuming "political correct" speakers. Which is actually not for ones lose, since right view is much more of worth that relationships and certain gains by it.
As for "annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment": maybe good to investigate the topic "Justice vs. skillfullness" and "Wisdom over Justice", to learn about right judgement, because it's mostly that speech on such isn't wholesome but often based on wrong view. Anger is always akusala, yet one should only kill it ;-).

The comsuming mob s always fast... thinking it is of help not to address Nyom Karl.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Democratic, not democratic, a valid and useful judging of a community?
What is the Sublime Buddhas approach in regard of judging a certain community and it's governing?
What makes a community conducting badly?
Which kind of community can only fail (in regard of good deeds, benefical in long terms) by democratic means?
Which kind of community allows democratic ways?
Which kind of community requires authority? ...

samadhi prajna? it's just on-line, relax

Without virtue there is no Samadhi, no Panna, no liberation. With wrong view there is wrong virtue. With wrong association, wrong view comes along. Foolish one who relaxes where the root cause comes into play, good householder. On-line does kamma. Nowhere more bad kamma conducted then in the internet realm... "thinking, it's just on-line, where it matters"... wrong view.

Democracy often degenerates into foolish debates.
The Buddha was once asked to help a group of mendicants stop their ongoing harsh debate:

MN128:4.1: Then the Buddha went up to those mendicants and said,
MN128:4.2: “Enough, mendicants! Stop arguing, quarreling, and disputing.”

Three times the Buddha asked. And three times the Buddha was ignored.
In the morning the Buddha declared:

MN128:6.1: “When many voices shout at once,
MN128:6.2: no-one thinks that they’re a fool!
MN128:6.3: While the Saṅgha’s being split,
MN128:6.4: none thought another to be better.
MN128:6.5: Dolts pretending to be astute,
MN128:6.6: they talk, their words right out of bounds.
MN128:6.7: They blab at will, their mouths agape,
MN128:6.8: and no-one knows what leads them on.
MN128:6.9: “They abused me, they hit me!
MN128:6.10: They beat me, they robbed me!”
MN128:6.11: For those who bear such a grudge,
MN128:6.12: hatred never ends.
MN128:6.13: “They abused me, they hit me!
MN128:6.14: They beat me, they robbed me!”
MN128:6.15: For those who bear no such grudge,
MN128:6.16: hatred has an end.
MN128:6.17: For never is hatred
MN128:6.18: settled by hate,
MN128:6.19: it’s only settled by love:
MN128:6.20: this is an ancient law.
MN128:6.21: Others don’t understand
MN128:6.22: that here we need to be restrained.
MN128:6.23: But those who do understand this,
MN128:6.24: being clever, settle their conflicts.
MN128:6.25: Breakers of bones and takers of life,
MN128:6.26: thieves of cattle, horses, wealth,
MN128:6.27: those who plunder the nation:
MN128:6.28: even they can come together,
MN128:6.29: so why on earth can’t you?
MN128:6.30: If you find an alert companion,
MN128:6.31: a wise and virtuous friend,
MN128:6.32: then, overcoming all adversities,
MN128:6.33: wander with them, joyful and mindful.
MN128:6.34: If you find no alert companion,
MN128:6.35: no wise and virtuous friend,
MN128:6.36: then, like a king who flees his conquered realm,
MN128:6.37: wander alone like a tusker in the wilds.
MN128:6.38: It’s better to wander alone,
MN128:6.39: there’s no fellowship with fools.
MN128:6.40: Wander alone and do no wrong,
MN128:6.41: at ease like a tusker in the wilds.”

With that said, the Buddha left. The Buddha left those who would not listen and went on his way to speak with others who would listen.
Sometimes the authority simply leaves and goes on to speak to those who will listen with proper attention.

The problem with the communists at SC, aside of not fearing to steal, is that they give Vinaya less interest, and so don't understand basic measures... not to speek of not capable to understand a question, since somewhere lost in wrong Samadhi, goid householder.

And yes, you, they, are already left alone... totally. For one assisting in thieving and often rebuked, continue, there is no use of marxists for a good in this world, so they are left allone with their thiefs.

If they just would have search engines which find their defiled thinking and errors in their heart. Sure, such they wouldn't be able to develop, not knowing themselves.

Thank you. Added "thief" to search examples. Those who find it will look deeper.

Comment as foolish as the answer... Maybe starting to look into Vinaya, to get the base first.

I'm not sure what impresses me most: the skillful answer or the abundance of links. Great answer!

@Max, thanks for your kindness. We're working hard to make it easier for folks to read  and find the teachings directly.  The Buddha's teachings are indeed amazing. It is their vastness that can overwhelm us as we slide into the TL;DR world.  Buddhist Stack Exchange is quite an important resource to help us find Dhamma gems together.

All autocracy, democracy, and righteousnessy could be right or wrong depending on the doer's mind moments, wholesome is right, unwholesome is wrong.
However the ordinaries normally often decide right as wrong and wrong as right because of clinging on view (ditthi-upadana), such as thinking about 'what I am answer must be right, others' must be wrong', etc. This always happen because of no virtues/moral (sila),
no 8 jhana (samadhi), and no 8 knowledges(8 vijja) according to  DN1 BrahmajalaSutta, DN 2 SamannaphalaSutta, DN 10 SubhaSutta, and DN 15 MahanidanaSutta.
So, according to DN 2 SamannaphalaSutta, the Buddha taught about virtues/moral (sila),  8 jhana (samadhi), and 8 knowledges(8 vijja) to let the listener understood the way to cease  the argument of teacher and student at the beginning of DN2 and DN1.
To access insight the second to the seventh knowledge, the Buddha taught MN 119 Kāyagatāsatisutta to let the practitioner practice AdhiCittaSkkha (concentration meditation), and taught DN 2 SamannaphalaSutta to start the second to the seventh knowledge.
According to DN 10 SubhaSutta, every 8 vijja is AdhiPannaSikkha base on 4th Mastery Jhana.
To access insight the first knowledge, VipassanaNana, in the smallest particle, smaller than atom, which the ordinary think they are only same one, the Buddha taught DN 22 MahāsatipaṭṭhānaSutta to analysis the molecules of smallest particles (samuha-ghana), time-period of smallest particles' various moments (santatighana), co-working-duties of smallest particles' various duties (kicca-ghana), same time being-knew-objects of  smallest particles' various being knew in same time (arammana-ghana).
According to DN 15 MahanidanaSutta, all above particles (plus nibbana and pannatti) are relative each others as 24 conditions, which means every particle is impermanence, suffering, and uncontrollable.  And
DN 15 is the end of DN 1 which I've quoted above.
All of what I answered above are described follow the the relativity of entire DN's structure. According to the history record, DN was memorized by Ananda-thera, the Buddha's brother. He was the main role in the first Buddhist council who accepted by almost all Budกhist party.

Good, good Vorapol. Yet, Vinaya before Abhidhamma. It's really not that far yet. What does Vinaya account on it (dhammic right, wrong) was already mentioned.

Dhamma society is governed by Dhamma; say a Dhamma Dictatorship.
DN 26 says the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch must rely on the Dhamma (nissāya dhammaṁ).
DN 16 says a Republic also conforms to traditional dhamma (porāṇe dhamme).
The Dhamma itself is always a dictatorship, whether enacted by a ruler or by a community.
Dhamma has no place for the democracy of Mara, where people can vote to make   harmful things legal & acceptable.

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


text:
Did the historical Buddha explicitly teach and/or endorse Kasiṇa (meditation)?
What are the Pali cannon references, if any, for the historical Buddha explicitly teaching and/or endorsing Kasiṇa (meditation of the type found in the Visuddhimagga or any type of Kasina meditations)?

There is a related question here on Stackexchange.
This is a contested topic with active discussions going. The background is that some Theravadins may feel the need to defend their Visuddhimagga against attacks from other traditions who say that Buddhaghosa just added this stuff.

It feels like this should have been more suited as a comment, rather than an answer.

@Max thanks! I'm not sure about this. I've checked https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/297066/ Pointing to a related question is a soft way of marking the question as duplicated. That's quite frequently used in the other techy StackExchanges communities where I'm active. Also, I frankly believe there is no better answer to this question than saying that it is disputed, and that there might be no generally accepted truth to it. Please correct me if you think that I'm wrong, I'm eager to learn and improve.

Yes, I agree. The line between commenting and answering can be quite grey. Adding to that, the evolution of Theravada, which is quite messy, makes approaching the question a challenge.

The Kosala Sutta: The Kosalan is one example. So nothing wrong by using such kammaṭṭhāna, good householder, as certain included and preference of kind of 'hobby' is different from individual to individual.
And it's not wise to hold a 'I know better that the Elders' attitude, but much better and of benefit if approaching the Gems with devotion, respect, generosity and patient first. As else would just demerit, here and here after.

My impression is Kosala Sutta is only one of two examples, which points to these suttas being fake rather than the Buddha's words. It is expected the AN and MN will contain late material. https://suttacentral.net/search?query=kasina

Sure... what ever goes against the grain, defilements, must be fake... One who isn't able to leave home and sensuality, yet thinking smarter then the Gems, thats possible more easy to trace as fake, or?

@Dhammadhatu, if there are two and the Kosala Sutta is one, what is the other one?

MN 77..........................


text:
Effortless Mindfulness
Am currently taking Tricycle course on Effortless mindfulness.  The concept of being aware of awareness is difficult for me.  Any ideas to help achieve being aware of awareness during meditation as a type of "advanced" basic mindfulness?

Mindfulness or 'sati' does not mean 'awareness' therefore Tricycle appears off to a bad start. 'Mindfulness' means 'to remember', most specifically, to remember to practise the Buddhist path.

Mindfulness does not mean awareness.
The above said, attempting to be aware of awareness is excessive effort. Trying to do this may possibly make one crossed-eyed or give one a headache.
Right effort in formal meditation is simply to establish the mind in quietude or silence. For example, at the very end of the Anapanasati Sutta, it is said right mindfulness depends on quietude (solitude from unwholesome mental states; viveka), fading away (viraga), cessation (nirodha) & matures as giving up attachment or surrender (vossagga).
The quiet mind is naturally aware because the nature of the mind or consciousness is to be aware of something. If a practitioner uses too much effort, that excessive effort will become an obscuration to clear awareness.

It's much smarter to seek for getting in touch with the teachings of the Sublime Buddha, seeking out for the Sangha (of monks), then to rely on teachings traders [for money] give. There is no such as effortless mindfulness, since it actually requires a lot of, even right effort, used for abandoning wrong view. Blessed those who don't meet cheaters.

I have just recently found a repetition that has proven extremely helpful for me to expand my awareness of the moment or mindfulness.
I set my cell phone to signal for one minute at the top of each hour. No matter what I am doing at that moment I become mindful of what I am doing. I breathe deep and slow, focusing, being aware.
The effects are very encouraging. My mindfulness is extending beyond one minute and I am able to involve the moment much more easily. Monkey chatter is eliminated and bliss sometimes makes me smile.
Is it necessary to wrestle over the meaning of mindfulness, awareness, or living in the moment? I am not so sure.


text:
Need a list of all the people in Buddhas life
I need a list of all the people mentioned in the Pali canon who were in the story of the historic Gautama the Buddha. For e.g. Angulimal, Ananda etc. I did a google search for the same but did not find the answer. Also, if you can provide sutta reference for their mention that will be great.

Please try AccessToInsight (ATI)'s Index of Proper Names.
On this page, please search for the following phrases:

"Buddha's"
"of the Buddha"

You will find phrases like "Buddha's father", "Buddha's cousin", "son of the Buddha", "Buddha's first meditation teacher", "half-brother of the Buddha", "Buddha's chief personal attendant" etc.
The ATI page will provide sutta references, if available.
For a description, please next refer to Palikanon's Buddhist Dictionary of Pali Proper Names.
For example, on the ATI page, you can find:

Suddhodana (Buddha's father): Sn 3.11

Then on Palikanon:

Suddhodana

A Sākiyan Rājā of Kapilavatthu and father of Gotama Buddha.
He was the son of Sihahanu and Kaccānā. His brothers were Dhotodana,
Sakkodana, Sukkodana and Amitodana, and his sisters were Amitā and
Pamitā.
Māyā was his chief consort, and, after her death her sister Pajāpatī
was raised to her position (Mhv.ii.15f.; Dpv.iii.45; J.i.15, etc.).

and it continues with further description on the Buddha's father, his life and background.


text:
How is Nagarjunas 'Shunyata' different from Buddhas 'Anatta'?
I am studying Nagarjuna's work online and from the commentaries understand that in the Madhyamika Nagarjuna describe 'Shunayata' as

all phenomena are conditional and empty of any self essence

I am not able to understand how is this any different than the doctrine of Anatta that the Buddha taught?

that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon.

Is there a difference between sunatta and anatta

What is the difference between non-self and emptiness?

How does the experience of "realisation of Sunyata" differ from "realisation of Anatta"?

there are very many different interpretations of emptiness in buddhism. you could read an encyclopaedia e.g. plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna and associated links. arguably the main difference is anatta does not claim that things cannot be broken down into really existent parts, only that there is nothing in addition to those

Many non-Madhyamaka sects believe that the Buddha taught that things are "empty of yourself," but are not "empty of themselves." In order to fully investigate your question, you would need to investigate the Abhidharma of a non-Madhyamaka sect. The only current sect who has an Abhidharma is the Theravada sect. If you study their Abhidhamma and their Abhidhamma treatises, you'll find that they understand "Nibbana" to be a particular discrete dhamma with its own existence that is "not empty." Furthermore, they believe that the dhammas are "not empty" because they are merely empty of "yourself." They have a concept called "sabhava" which constitutes the "intrinsic essence" or "own-being" of a dhamma (which is antithetical to Madhyamaka analysis). You can read more about the Theravadin-specific framing of "emptiness" in Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, which is available as a PDF for-free on the Internet. It starts by outlining the Theravadin four constituents of "ultimate reality," namely form, citta, cetasikas, and Nibbana. These four things, from a traditional Theravadin POV, are not empty of themselves. They are ultimate realities. According to Venerable Nagarjuna's analysis given in the MMK, emptiness itself is the only ultimate reality, and emptiness even is empty of itself.
I didn't want to have to go into unnecessary detail for such a simple question with such a simple answer, and this will be difficult to read -- but for reference, this is from the Chinese recension of the Muladhyamakakarika with commentary by Venerable Vimalaksa (T1564). The context is a debate with a Sammatīya interlocutor framed by the verses of Venerable Nagarjuna's root text:

[Root text] If nirvāṇa exists, then nirvāṇa will be conditioned.
Truly, there is not one phenomenon that is unconditioned.
[Ven Vimalākṣa] Nirvāṇa is not an existence. Why? All the many things
conform to dependent origination. All are conditioned. There is not
one phenomenon that is called 'the unconditioned.' Although the
constant phenomena are conventionally called 'unconditioned,' via
analysis we find the inconstant phenomena (to be) nonexistent. How
much moreso the constant phenomena, which cannot be seen and cannot be
conceived?
[Root text] If nirvāṇa exists, why is it called 'independent?' There
is nothing not following from dependence that is called an existent
phenomenon.
[Interlocutor] If existence is not nirvāṇa, then nonexistence must be
nirvāṇa.
[Root text] Existence is not nirvāṇa, much less is it nonexistence. If
nirvāṇa does not exist, how could it exist as nonexistence?
[Ven Vimalākṣa] It is because of existence that there is nonexistence.
If there is no existence, how can there exist nonexistence? Like the
scriptures say, former existence presently not existing is what is
called 'nonexistence.' Nirvāṇa, however, is not so. How? It is not an
extant phenomenon changing into the nonexistent. Because of this,
nonexistence also is not nirvāṇa.

Traditional Theravadin orthodoxy disagrees with the bolded statement. They do believe that there is a "particular phenomenon" called "Nirvana" that is not empty of itself, is not empty of its own particular characteristics that are intrinsic to it.

Thanks for posting. When I read your answer it seemed to me short, lucid -- and plausible, fitting in with what I know -- and on-topic, really answering the question. FYI you are also welcome to add a reference, as you did -- some people prefer you do, for various reason -- but though some people prefer it, it is not required on this site, and some people don't.

In the suttas when Buddha speaks about Anatta (really, Anatva - as we now know from the Gandhari manuscripts) he usually goes on to explain that no (conditional) dharma is fitting to be pointed at and identified as "that's me", "that's what I'm made of", "that's mine". Wherever we look we only see physical, informational, energetic, mental, and emotional phenomena. They interact, impacting each other, combining together and splitting apart, creating latent potentials, and being created by latent potentials - but all of it is utterly impersonal. So in its basic sense Anatta simply means that our habit of pointing at some of that and saying "that's what i am" is a folly that only leads to frustration as a piece we identified with undergoes transformation or decomposition.
Now, in the few suttas where the Buddha talks about Shunya and Shunyata he uses the word in context of explaining another bad habit we have - projecting our preconceptions on whatever it is that we perceive and then assuming that our interpretations are the reality. Buddha says, that all phenomena are in fact empty (=shunya, adjective) of what we read into them. All we have is our own senses, the rest is only our interpretation. When we clearly understand that, we can "dwell in Emptiness" (=Shunyata, noun) by seeing things as they are, without projecting our prejudices on them. This is what Jidu Krishnamurti calls "freedom from the known" and what the Buddha explains with the metaphor of the sunlight not falling anywhere when the ground is removed.
Nagarjuna picks up on these themes and explains that what Buddha must have meant is that the bad habit of reification (confusing our simplistic interpretations for reality) is in fact the main driving force behind craving/attachment and therefore is the root cause of suffering. He then goes on to illustrate how every fixed entity or notion that we can take for analysis is in fact logically inconsistent under careful examination. He means that as a proof that all so-called things are only our simplistic interpretations of fluid, non-discrete, amorphous, ungraspable reality.
Nagarjuna then goes on to explain, that Dependent Origination in fact describes the process of gradual development of interpretation and onset of reification of it. He shows that all so-called "distinct things" are empty exactly because they arose as a result of dependent origination - because they are interpretations, not reality. He summarizes this in his famous assertion: Emptiness and Dependent origination describe the same principle - (dependently originated) form is empty, and emptiness is the true ground of all forms, "Form is empty and emptiness is form".
Before Nagarjuna, Anatta and Shunyata were rather different. Anatta referred to the folly of identifying with something and Shunyata referred to the folly of reifying our interpretations of phenomena.
After Nagarjuna, Anatta got subsumed in Shunyata as a more broad principle. Because all our ideas of forms or external phenomena, and our idea of self or the subject, result from Dependent Origination, both are empty. Thus, after Nagarjuna, Anatta is understood as merely a one specific case of Shunyata which has now received its long-deserved recognition as the central concept of Buddha's teaching.

According to the Pali Theravada suttas (e.g. SN 35.85), the Buddha taught 'sunnata' means 'empty of self & anything pertaining to self'. This includes Nibbana because Nibbana is one of the sense objects (Ud 8.1; ayatana; sense base) included with 'mind objects' in SN 35.85 and because the suttas also say all things are anatta (Dhp 279).
Most importantly, Nibbana is regarded a thing (dhamma) or element (dhatu; MN 115) in the Pali suttas. However, per MN 115 & many other suttas, Nibbana is the unconditioned thing (asankhata dhatu), as follows:

There are these two elements: Dve imā, ānanda, dhātuyo—
the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. saṅkhatādhātu,
asaṅkhatādhātu.
When a mendicant knows and sees these two elements, Imā kho, ānanda,
dve dhātuyo yato jānāti passati—
they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.” ettāvatāpi
kho, ānanda, ‘dhātukusalo bhikkhū’ti alaṁvacanāyā”ti.
MN 115

It follows the Buddha, according to the Pali suttas, never ever not once never ever taught: all phenomena are conditional and empty of any self essence. While Nibbana is empty of any self essence, Nibbana is not conditional.
In summary, it is most essential to understand the verses below:

"All conditioned things [which excludes Nibbana] are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.

"All conditioned things [which excludes Nibbana] are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.

"All things [which includes Nibbana] are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Dhp 279

Also, in the Theravada Abhidhamma, the concept "sabhava" does not mean "own-being". Instead, it means "inherent/own nature", such as in the description below from the Buddha's words:

"And why do you call it 'form'? Because it is afflicted, thus it
is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger &
thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles.
Because it is afflicted, it is called form.
"And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called
'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it
feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called
feeling.
"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is
called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it
perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it
perceives, it is called perception.
"And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate
fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they
fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they
fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness,
they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of
perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of
consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated
thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called
fabrications.
"And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it
is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is
sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, &
unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.
SN 22.79.

While the Buddha never used the term "sabhava", the text above shows the "inherent nature" of consciousness is to cognise; the "inherent nature" of feeling is to feel; etc.
To say consciousness has no inherent nature appears to say cognition (seeing, hearing, tasting, etc) is not possible.
If consciousness did not have the inherent nature to only cognise, then consciousness would be able to speak, walk, bleed, be reincarnated, etc.
In summary, because consciousness has inherent nature it cannot have 'woke' characteristics, such as 'fluidity'. Consciousness can only be consciousness; consciousness can only cognise. If consciousness had no "sabhava", there would be no sense or life experience; instead; all would be blind, deaf, dumb, etc.


text:
Does "sunnata" mean "empty of your self"?
I read on the internet the following doctrinal statement regarding Buddhist Philosophy:

Furthermore, they believe that the dhammas are "not empty" because they are merely empty of "yourself."

If the above is true, is there a "self" beyond "your self", such as "universal self", similar to Brahma or Atman?

I voted down cos I didn't understand the question but got it now. I'll suggest an edit

I said that. This thread is an attempt to engage me personally.
IMO, the text at the end of your question about Brahman is a strange projection and is a critical misunderstanding of what it means to be "empty of attā." The original context was asking users to compare Madhyamaka with non-Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka teaches that all dharmas are empty both of "yourself" (pudgalanairātma) and "themselves" (dharmanairātma). Theravāda traditionally only teaches emptiness of a self or anything to a self belonging. Some modern Theravāda teachers are highly influenced by Madhyamaka and hold the opposite stance.

thanks for answering my question. but my impression of the Teachings is Emptiness means "empty of self" rather than "empty of your self". Empty of "your self" appears to imply there are other types of "self'. Anyway, for your effort, I up arrow your answer.

Please desist from making threads about me in the future.

Sorry but this forum is about Buddhist Philosophy.

Dhammas or the belief systems are not worth calling as me,mine or myself.
Whether that belief system is good or bad or scientific to any extent are impermanent and are therefore source of suffering and therefore can not be called as me,mine or myself.
If a belief system does opposite of what it is supposed to do then does it hold any ground? In that sense it is empty. (Physical emptiness is also impermanent)
Faith in Brahman or Brahma or Atma are also impermanent therefore they can not be called as me , mine or myself.(i.e. Self or Universal Self or any kind collective self)
However the Truth above is unchanging.

I believe the standard interpretation is that the "one mind" mentioned in e.g. in the awakening of faith sastra, written or rewritten by Paramartha in the 6th century, belongs to all sentient beings. It is not experienced identically in all of them, because sentient beings have different non-enlightenment. How "non-enlightenment" works out involves what path you are following, what sutras and teachers, etc..
Which raises the question: are all completely enlightened Buddhas identical? Trivially, in Mahayana Buddhism they have different apparitional and reward bodies. I believe the "dharmakaya" - which is discovered to be identical to the "one mind" - is undifferentiated. So in some sense yes: there is a universal mind, whether or not we call it a "self" (what do you mean by that: it's not what I mean by that?).
I believe there is no "atman" - according to anyone - in Theravada Buddhism. Any self is categorically not "atman" (it's a late addition from forged words of the Buddha like the Mahaparinirvana sutra).

Zhencheng draws heavily upon the idea of one mind,
found in the Awakening of Faith, a catechism of the Huayan Buddhist
tradition. In this scripture the one mind, or the unitary mind, is
said to capture the images of all things within the world. An infamous
passage in the Awakening of Faith reads: “With the arising of the mind
the multitude of different kinds of dharmas arise; with the cessation
of the mind the multitude of different kinds of dharmas come to
cease.”68 Zhencheng writes in his Polished Exegesis: “When one person
dies, the images and reflections that are carried within that one
person’s mind cease. But it is not the case that the common karma that
stimulated that mind—such as the mountain or river—would also cease
with it.”                            .69 He continues: “There is but
one mountain and one river, one heaven and one earth, one sun and one
moon. But they appear as distinct images in the mind of each and every
sentient being which contains conceptual discriminations.”
.70

Emphasis added. Zhencheng was a 16th century monk

recognized as leaders of the Chinese lineage of the Huayan school of
East Asian Buddhism for their longstanding contributions to this
religious and philosophical tradition.


text:
Are there any Suttas, Vinaya or Abhidhamma explaining sīlabbata-parāmāsa?
Are there any Suttas, Vinaya or Abhidhamma explaining sīlabbata-parāmāsa in detail?
Please kindly provide examples if knowing. Thank you

Clinging to precepts and practices which lead to increase in unskillful mental qualities and decrease in skillful mental qualities is silabbata paramasa.

"When — by following a life of precept & practice (sīlabbata)
, a life, a holy life
that is followed as of essential worth — one's unskillful mental
qualities increase while one's skillful mental qualities decline: that
sort of precept & practice, life, holy life that is followed as of
essential worth is fruitless. But when — by following a life of
precept & practice, a life, a holy life that is followed as of
essential worth — one's unskillful mental qualities decline while
one's skillful mental qualities increase: that sort of precept &
practice, life, holy life that is followed as of essential worth is
fruitful."
AN 3.78

Also, purity of virtue is for the sake of purity of mind.
Clinging to the right precepts and practices, beyond the purpose of mental purification, is also silabbata paramasa, based on the raft simile of MN 22.

"In the same way, my friend, purity in terms of virtue (sīlavisuddhi)
is simply for
the sake of purity in terms of mind (cittavisuddhi).
Purity in terms of mind is simply
for the sake of purity in terms of view. Purity in terms of view is
simply for the sake of purity in terms of the overcoming of
perplexity. Purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity is simply
for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is
not the path. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is
not the path is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge &
vision of the way. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way is
simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision. Purity
in terms of knowledge & vision is simply for the sake of total
Unbinding through lack of clinging. And it's for the sake of total
Unbinding through lack of clinging that the holy life is lived under
the Blessed One."
MN 24

In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft,
for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.
Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let
go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."
MN 22

best answer IMO

this answer is useful. I recall there is sutta where the Buddha rebukes some monks because they returned to the monastery with moral outrage at a certain behaviour of laypeople. Can u remember this sutta? Thanks

(3) “What is the clinging to mere rules and ritual (sīlabbatupādāna/sīlabbata-parāmāsa-upādāna, one of the five lower fetters, of the ten.)? The holding firmly to the view that through mere rules and ritual one may reach purification: this is called the clinging to mere rules and ritual. [Dhammasaṅgaṇi 1214-17]

Such as dog- or ox-duties, un-instructed meditation, meditating without leaving house, water-rituals, or what ever kind of householding and rules and rituals not within the eightfold path, not based on right view, holding on views, good householder. And what is holding on views?

“What is the clinging to views? 'Alms and offerings are useless; there is no fruit and result for good and bad deeds: all such view and wrong conceptions are called the clinging to views...

He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

And whats the root of holding on views/stand/household, denying right view?

“What now is the sensuous clinging? Whatever with regard to sensuous objects there exists of sensuous lust, sensuous desire, sensuous attachment, sensuous passion, sensuous deludedness, sensuous fetters: this is called sensuous clinging.

May it be of use for leaving home and not be used to maintain it for ones house. As this holding on is an aspect of bhava-tanha, a strong parāmāsa, going after housegstand or wishing to destroy it.
Refined at least...

"Ananda, every precept & practice, every life, every holy life that is followed as of essential worth: is every one of them fruitful?" -> Silabbata Sutta: Precept & Practice

i found the first quote in the answer relevant  but the remainder of the answer is confusing. In fact, my impression is clinging to the quote from the Dhammasaṅgaṇi may lead to the what looks like sīlabbata-parāmāsa in the remainder of the answer. It seems moralizing & evangelizing inappropriately (such as to the wrong audience) may possibly also be sīlabbata-parāmāsa.

Maybe Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta helps https://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than_en.html in regard to know, if good householder seeks after that and not as usuals sideways to justify his incapacities, rejecting the boat before going off-shore on lost land. Good householder, of course is part of same kind of audience: those not found faith yet. It's liberal given and he can use it for merits or for gains. Up to him.

Reaching the Noble Domain stinginess, and defence toward the right path, by having left home, decays, no more merely rites and rituals with no effect toward liberation.

According to DN 15 MahaniddanaSutta
SilabbataParamasa

"And this is the way to understand how it is that because of
defensiveness various evil, unskillful phenomena come into play: the
taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes;
accusations, divisive speech, and lies. If there were no defensiveness
at all, in any way, of anything anywhere, in the utter absence of
defensiveness, from the cessation of defensiveness, would various
evil, unskillful phenomena -- the taking up of sticks and knives;
conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and
lies -- come into play?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
is a requisite condition for the coming-into-play of various evil,
unskillful phenomena -- the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts,
quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies --
i.e., defensiveness.
"’Defensiveness is dependent on stinginess.’ Thus it has been said.
And this is the way to understand how defensiveness is dependent on
stinginess. If there were no stinginess at all, in any way, of
anything anywhere, in the utter absence of stinginess, from the
cessation of stinginess, would defensiveness be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
is a requisite condition for defensiveness, i.e., stinginess.
(Similarly back through the chain of conditions: stinginess,
attachment, possessiveness, desire and passion, ascertainment,
acquisition, and seeking.)

SakkayaDitthi

"’Seeking is dependent on craving.’ Thus it has been said. And this is
the way to understand how seeing is dependent on craving. If there
were no craving at all, in any way, of anything anywhere -- i.e.,
craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for no becoming
-- in the utter absence of craving, from the cessation of craving, would seeking be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
is a requisite condition for seeking, i.e., craving. Thus, Ānanda,
these two phenomena [the chain of conditions leading from craving to
birth, aging, and death, and the chain of conditions leading from
craving to quarrels, etc.], as a duality, flow back into one place at
feeling.

And the practitioner can see something like that through the entire tipitaka after understanding what I wrote here.

DN 15 mentions "sīlabbatupādānaṁ" but does it define what it means? The bit you quoted is (according to Ven. Sujato's translation) about "safeguarding" (caused by "stinginess", caused by "ownership", caused by "attachment", caused by "desire and lust", caused by "assessing", caused by "seeking", caused by "craving", etc.). Is that related to "SilabbataParamasa": which Ven Sujato translates as "grasping at precepts and observances"?

Sila means  usually do. If one do usually same Tanha, it is called Upadana (=Paramasa, hold again and again, addict). It is called SilabbataParamasa when those repeating behaviors are stronger and stronger enough to act verbally or physically, then break Sila. SakkayaDitthi is Tanha, and 3 Upadana. SilabbataParamasa is verbally or physically SakkayaDitthi. That's why DN1 end with the dependent origination (stat with verbal argument of teacher and student, then 62 Ditthi, then Dependent Origination).

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense as an explanation; but it is not what I expected from the translations as "attachment to rites and rituals" and "grasping at precepts"!

@ChrisW It's same. You need to translate pali word by word. "Attachment to rites and rituals" and "grasping at precepts" are just the worst cases. Actually, all of the ordinaries'  conversations and actions are rites and rituals because they are attaching every second of their lives, even they are talking Dhamma or meditating, tanha still going on.

this answer plus the bolded headings in it appear irrelevant to the question

@Dhammadhatu Everything in Tipitaka, especially enlightenment relevant, must be relate to Paticcasamuppada. Who don't understand what I've writen, he need to do hard on Jhana and past lives recollection.


text:
What is Buddhism (in a nutshell)?

I have been trying to think about Buddhism, Scientology and Gaia religions. They do not focus on a God but rather the eternal inner spirit and reincarnation. The best so far I have come up with is “Spiritual” or “Letsism” . Letsism is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcended reality. Or even “Dianetics” a Set of ideals and practices regarding the relationship between mind and body. Not sure yet.

This is a quote from a Quora answer to What is the term for those who believe in God, but not in religion? and it got me curious.
I know this has been asked before in a couple of different ways, but what is Buddhism?
What is Buddhism? tells us that

Buddhism is a nontheistic religion or philosophy (Sanskrit: dharma; Pali: dhamma) that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha, commonly known as the Buddha ("the awakened one").
[...]
The foundations of Buddhist tradition and practice are the Three Jewels:

The Buddha – One who attains enlightenment by oneself, then teaches others to become enlightened;

The Dharma – the theory and practice taught by a self-enlightened Buddha; and

The Sangha – the community who attained enlightenment following the teachings of Buddha.

The answer also points out that Buddhist traditions can incorporate

Devotional practices – non-theistic objects of devotion include the Buddha, past enlightened followers of the Buddha, Bodhisatvas, angels, gods, and living spiritual teachers.

This seems to contradict the Quora quote when it said that Buddhism does not focus on a God.
Is Buddhism a religion? points out through the answers that Buddhism can be seen as a religion, but...

The Buddha did not ask for anyone to take his word with respect to Dhamma - things as they are. He asked people to not blindly obey, to not follow ritual, to not ignore or go against what they directly observe. In this respect, Buddhism is at its core a scientific method.
[...]
Most major religions accept testimony of the wise, seers, prophets etc as truths, as well as others from the above link [pramanas]. Buddhism does not.

So, going back to the Quora quote, is Buddhism

a form of Letsism — an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcended reality?
a form of Dianetics — a set of ideals and practices regarding the relationship between mind and body? Or,
aside from "new age Buddhism", is it just purely a spiritual teaching based on a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects?

I'd say that "Buddhist" (as an adjective) includes:

Doctrines (spoken and written) ascribed to the Buddha -- Buddhavacana -- and derivative works
Practices inspired or prescribed by those doctrines -- including the Vinaya and the lay Precepts
People -- individuals and societies -- who study or practice the above (and who may self-identify as "Buddhist")

I hadn't heard of "Ietsism" before.
It wouldn't occur to me to describe Buddhism as "unspecified" because it seems to me to be specified at enormous length.
Although, some traditions of Buddhism use the metaphor of a "finger pointing at the moon" to warn against mistaking the finger for the moon, where the "moon" represents nirvana and the Buddha's doctrine represents the "finger" which points to it -- thus Buddhism isn't only doctrine.
One thing it seems to me it has in common with "religions" such as Christianity is some notion of ethics -- Christianity has list of various sins and virtues, and so does Buddhism.
The Buddhist equivalent of "sins" include the Three Poisons, the Hindrances, the Fetters.
And the "virtues" or equivalent include the Perfections, the Heavenly Abodes, the Factors of Enlightenment.
Also I'm not sure that Buddhism teaches "a reality beyond" -- in the way that Christianity seems to me to teach the existence of an unseen God and Heaven. Instead maybe Buddhist doctrine is about what is "without" instead of what is "beyond" -- e.g. without anger, without suffering, without grasping, projection.

Finally I might mention that Buddhism has hard to summarize "in a nutshell" -- partly because it has spanned more than 2000 years and several continents.
One answer on this site says,

What is surprising is that each branch has a slightly different take on what the problem is that Buddhism is meant to solve.

Shin Buddhism. The fundamental problem is arrogance, particularly with respect to the idea that we think we can engage in practices to solve our other problems.
Theravada. The fundamental problem is suffering, particularly suffering associated with grasping and desiring things... The Dalai Lama sometimes uses this in public speeches to summarize the goal of Buddhism.
Mahayana. The fundamental problem is ignorance, particularly with respect to the question of who we are, and that we think our fundamental problem can be solved individually
Tathagata-Garba. The fundamental problem is that we think we have a problem

One part of the quote nobody seems to have touched (I may have missed it) is the "Dianetics" part. Would you say a large part of Buddhism involves a form of Dianetics, or is that a small part? Personally, I think it is a small part added to the concept of the 4 noble truths and the 8-fold path. What is your take on it?

I saw the word "Dianetics" when I was growing up, but I was never interested enough to find out what it means -- invented by L. Ron Hubbard, who invented Scientology, the only stuff of his I might have read was some not-memorable Science Fiction.

@ChrisRogers: The definition of “Dianetics” you provided in your question seemed to me so broad as not to be particularly descriptive of the Hubbard concepts. I am not a Scientologist nor a psychiatrist but, in my readings on the subject, I don’t see any connection between the Hubbard concept of “engrams” and the Buddha’s teachings. Could you specifically define your view of how they might be the connected? It might help us in answering your question on the subject.

In a nutshell:

The Buddha taught that there is suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the way to end suffering permanently.
Suffering is in the mind and originated by the mind.
To permanently end suffering, one must let go of mentally clinging to impermanent and unreliable things that are not you and do not belong to you.
The Noble Eightfold Path is the systematic way that leads to the permanent end of suffering.

Formerly and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation
of suffering.
SN 22.86

The noble truths of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation
of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of
suffering.
MN 141

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all
mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts, suffering
follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all
mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts, happiness
follows him like his never-departing shadow.
Dhammapada 1-2

“Bhikkhus, suppose there was a mountain river sweeping downwards,
flowing into the distance with a swift current. If on either bank of
the river kasa grass or kusa grass were to grow, it would overhang it;
if rushes, reeds, or trees were to grow, they would overhang it. If a
man being carried along by the current should grasp the kasa grass, it
would break off and he would thereby meet with calamity and disaster;
if he should grasp the kusa grass, it would break off and he would
thereby meet with calamity and disaster; if he should grasp the
rushes, reeds, or trees, they would break off and he would thereby
meet with calamity and disaster.
“So too, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling … regards form as self,
or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
That form of his disintegrates and he thereby meets with calamity and
disaster. He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional
formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing
consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in
consciousness. That consciousness of his disintegrates and he thereby
meets with calamity and disaster.
SN 22.93

“Bhikkhus, what do you think? If people carried off the grass, sticks,
branches, and leaves in this Jeta Grove, or burned them, or did what
they liked with them, would you think: ‘People are carrying us off or
burning us or doing what they like with us’?”—“No, venerable sir. Why
not? Because that is neither our self nor what belongs to our
self.”—“So too, bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it; when you
have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a
long time. What is it that is not yours? Material form is not
yours… Feeling is not yours…
Perception is not yours… Formations are not
yours… Consciousness is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned
it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time.
MN 22

For a wise person who has arrived at true knowledge, right view
springs up. For one of right view, right intention springs up. For one
of right intention, right speech springs up. For one of right speech,
right action springs up. For one of right action, right livelihood
springs up. For one of right livelihood, right effort springs up. For
one of right effort, right mindfulness springs up. For one of right
mindfulness, right concentration springs up.
SN 45.1

One part of the quote nobody seems to have touched (I may have missed it) is the "Dianetics" part. Would you say a large part of Buddhism involves a form of Dianetics, or is that a small part? Personally, I think it is a small part added to the concept of the 4 noble truths and the 8-fold path. What is your take on it?

The distinguishing factor of a religion is soteriology — theory of salvation — which has two components:

An assertion (or recognition, perhaps) that life in the temporal world contains trials, tribulations, miseries, pains, etc.: an array of unpleasant and (mostly) unavoidable happenings.
An assertion that it is possible to reach a place where those unpleasant happenings do not exist, through some particular programme of action.

Religious philosophy, thus, differs from political, moral, or social philosophy because the latter try to make the temporal world a better place, while religious philosophy tries to transcend the temporal world to reach an idealized state.
There are a number of different soteriologies out there in the world, But Buddhism's boils down to the following:

The source of human misery is rooted in ignorance — misunderstandings of the true nature of reality — and attachments to the mental fabrications that arise from such ignorance. Our misunderstandings and attachments cause us to constantly recreate the conditions of misery that we are trying to escape. It's a bit like that old saying about how drunks or crazy people keep doing the same thing while expecting to get different results...
Through a careful programme of developing awareness (through study, contemplation, and meditation), one will come to understand the true nature of reality, eliminating misunderstandings and obviating any attachments to those misunderstandings. Then one will abide in a state of peace and joy.

I don't see that as 'letsist', particularly, and the term 'spiritual' is too vaguely defined to make many fine distinctions of this sort. Take it as you will...

One part of the quote nobody seems to have touched (I may have missed it) is the "Dianetics" part. Would you say a large part of Buddhism involves a form of Dianetics, or is that a small part? Personally, I think it is a small part added to the concept of the 4 noble truths and the 8-fold path. What is your take on it?

@ChrisRogers: Dianetics is a form of psychology that would probably fall somewhere between Jungian and Reichian psychology (if it were ever fully developed, which I'm not convinced it was...). As such its goal isn't transcendence, but psychosocial integration. Not even Hubbard himself classed it as religious. DIanetics might be consistent with certain types of Buddhist practice (which isn't surprising, since faith always has to confront psychological distortion), but hoenstly I'd view that as convergence, not canon. EVErything can be seen as Buddhist if one tries hard enough.

I find or found it hard to understand "ignorance" (or "misunderstanding of the true nature of reality") as the "source of human misery" -- like what does that even mean? Instead, I might more easily/immediately see desire/craving/attachment as the source (conversely I think that Andrei once mentioned, that Mahayana teaches that aversion is the source) -- but then, ignorance is the "root" cause i.e. that's the source of craving and attachment etc., and is what needs to be uprooted in order to uproot the problems of attachment etc.

@ChrisW: As a pedagogical issue I agree: It's easier to understand desire/aversion (fight/flight) as the source, because desire/aversion is something we can all identify in ourselves (whereas it's far harder to see our own misconceptions). But philosophically... The problem I see with focusing on desire/aversion is that practitioners only learn to control or short-circuit the reflex; it leads to that trope of Buddhists being static, passive, inactive, or shut down. Overcoming ignorance is an opening (assent), where overcoming desire/aversion a closing (dismissal).

Pedagogically, I found introductory summaries using words like truth and reality and illusion unhelpful at best (they're not prescriptive) -- and misleading at worst, implying that there's some other reality "beyond" (as it's phrased in the OP), a dismissal of this one (as you put it).

@ChrisW: Fair point...

"The second reason for regarding the scholastic approach as misguided can be seen in all the evidence we have cited that the Buddha was not trying to build a systematic description of reality — or ultimate realities — as a whole. Thus to try to create one out of the raw materials of his words is a misapplication of his teaching — a form of inappropriate attention that distracts from the actual practice of his teachings, and one he would not condone.

Here it’s useful to remember the Buddha’s own analogy for his project as a teacher. From the first day of his teaching to the last, he stated that he was teaching a path. He started not with a first principle, but with a self-evident problem — stress — and then showed a path to its solution. Instead of trying to provide a total account of the world, he was simply showing the route to a particular goal where the initial problem is solved."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Skill in Questions: How the Buddha Taught" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SkillInQuestions/Section0008.html


text:
Does anyone interpret 'karma' this way?
Does anyone interpret karma to mean that the future itself arrives twice, "now" and again in the future?
Is there any reason to think that karma itself is that movement of impermanence, so that it cannot be entirely dissolved?

where did you come across this idea, "karma is the movement of impermanence.."? it sounds odd

it has an anthropomorphic quality to it...

it's just religion who cares @lilredindy

Not stopping, reacting with deluded tendency, will nourish, make experiances repeating, yes. Yet, it works also in the other direction, having heared to good Dhamma, that especially the "now" effort, in stopping unskillful, cuts away furture arising, good householder. No new produces, old running out.
And yes, if not getting 'luckily" meet the good Dhamma while proper attention, it's somehow "impermanent" this wandering on and suffer in Samsara.
More on Kamma: A Study Guide.

Your reference is very long. Did you mean to cite a specific section to address the original question?

Ways to liberation requires sacrifices. Common one is to greedy, to lazy, again and again, seeks ways without letting go of lazzyness, greed, not willing to surrender. Yet right here the kamma could end, good householder. All up to him.

Short answers are available in the sutta, but they can be a bit cryptic:

MN79:7.5: Nevertheless, Udāyī, leave aside the past and the future.
MN79:7.6: I shall teach you the Dhamma:
MN79:7.7: ‘When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.
MN79:7.8: When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases.’”

What is important about kamma is intention and its nature. When Identity View exists, much suffering arises. When Identity View doesn't exist, suffering ceases. In this quote, the Buddha is gently directing Udāyī to the present, which is the only place where we can affect our clinging to Identity View.
We're used to thinking about "this desire" and "that suffering" as separate. That artificial separation between "desire" and "suffering" deludes us into madly chasing desires while running away from suffering. Identity view chases desire and runs away from suffering. When identity view exists, suffering arises.

MN1:172-194.26: Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,

It's hard to let go of Identity View. It's hard to let go of relishing.

MN1:172-194.30: That is what the Buddha said.
MN1:172-194.31: But the mendicants were not happy with what the Buddha said.

most people can't be saints

...in this lifetime. But it's quite a relief that there is a way to be rid of suffering. A saint might just be tired of playing wack-a-mole with wishes.
DN34:2.1.151: ‘This teaching is for those of few wishes, not those of many wishes.

yeah true, sorry I took that wrongly

great posting..

Kamma is the law of this universe, its cause are cravings, its nature is dependent origination and its result is samsara or endless impermanent lives.
The cause of it has to be uprooted through non-self view or the Dhamma and to get it the mind needs to have nomore thoughts or even better it has to be directed in the right direction, the one of Virtue.
When the self is uprooted the kamma cannot find anymore the link to the doer, this is called deathless or hiding from Mara, the supervisor of kamma.

yeah. it's the same as asking if the effect is a repetition of e cause. I am pretty sure that's a really useful way of thinking about Nagarjuna's analysis of causation. thanks!

Karma is impermanent, and it depends on causes and conditions. Our actions (in this life and past lives) create positive and negative karma constantly.
Our thoughts and actions also influence the conditions for karma to manifest and function.
So in a way, your interpretation makes sense. If you think of "future" as the results or manifestation of karma, then the "future" arrives once when our actions create positive/negative karma, and it arrives again when our thoughts and actions influence the conditions for karma to manifest.

I'm depleted to up vote just cos you agreed with me, but idk if it's in the spirit of stack exchange ha

@again_insane_buddhist I guess the "spirit of SE" is to ask a question when you have a problem, and to upvote an answer if you find it "useful" i.e. if it helps to address/solve/answer that problem. Or some people up- or downvote depending on whether they think the answer is true or false. Or some people vote depending on whether they think an answer is relatively good, compared to others.

Karma is intentional thoughts, words and deeds (AN 6.63), for which thoughts are the most important component (MN 56) and it originates from the mind (Dhp 1).
There's nothing supernatural or paranormal about karma. When thoughts, words and deeds are intentionally exerted, the results come back in a natural and normal way, for example:

Law breakers get fined or prosecuted by law enforcement.
Those who habitually tell lies or violate the trust given to them, are not trusted by others.
Habitual exertion of evil and angry thoughts bring diseases in the body and remorse to the mind. (MN 135)
Habitual gamblers and alcoholics lose their wealth and are not trusted by others. (DN 31)
Soldiers who kill in battle experience PTSD after completing their tour of duty. (also SN 42.3)
Habitual lying becomes the launchpad for other evil acts. (Iti 25)

Not everything that happens is caused by karma (SN 36.21). Some things are, but there are seven other causes including carelessness, weather, assault by others, wind, bile etc. So, karma is simply a natural and normal consequence of intentional exertion. It's not supernatural.
Result of karma can also come from intentional exertion of thoughts, words and deeds from before physical birth. That's called old karma (SN 12.37), and it has shaped our physical appearance and genetic background.
Don't ask who did it when it (karma) came from the past (SN 12.17). And don't ask how exactly karma works (AN 4.77).
What's more useful is to look towards the future, inculcating a sense of accountability (AN 5.57), and shame and fear of doing evil (Iti 42).
To overcome the result of karma from the past, one needs to develop his virtues and wisdom (AN 3.100) with heedfulness (SN 3.17), and not underestimate the cumulative effect of doing good and bad deeds (Dhp 121 - 122).

if you don't believe in rebirth, then sure. this makes sense. I think it just shows how un-buddhist that is though. killing in war is only bad karma if we suffer ptsd? no

no offence, I just hate the idea of religion as a mental health treatment. there's also something sadistic and unfair about moralising those and only those who suffer due to their bad habits. it's not in the spirit of buddhist ethics, let alone philosophy

@again_insane_buddhist Regarding rebirth, please see this answer. To summarize: rebirth-of-self is a genuinely true phenomena for all those with self-view. Also, karma is based on intentions in Buddhism. It's not a universal system of justice.

@again_insane_buddhist Your comment on mental health treatment reminds me about monk and teacher Ajaan Fuang's comment here: ... but soon after the magazine came out, unusual numbers of people came to the wat under the impression that Ajaan Fuang, like the author of the autobiography, could treat illnesses through meditation. One woman asked him if he treated kidney diseases, and he answered, "I treat only one kind of disease: diseases of the mind."

hm I wouldn't use the word "justice" myself, so thanks for clarifying you wouldn't either. I wonder what the best EL term is for it? maybe 'self fault', but that has issues with closely translated other terms

plus that's only negative karma. all the regular users of this site know that karma is alleged to be a natural law of that generates our conscious experiences (however you want to view their reality) so yea

are you saying karma only occurs in an intentional format? "the results come back in a natural and normal way"....do the results come back in another way - unnatural or odd?

I think it's more that kammic effects are unpredictable to people that haven't reached enlightenment. I don't think anyone other than an enlightened one could tell you when or how your kamma from each individual action you take and thought you have will affect you.
My limited understanding of it disagrees with the idea that it affects you "twice." My understanding is that you can't attribute good or bad fortune you're experiencing to any specific things you've done UNTIL you've reached a certain stage of awakening when that kind of insight becomes available to you, and at that point I think you're incapable of generating negative kamma.

first it depends on your definition of karma.   action, or causality (cause-effect), etc.
i don't know how karma works, but I have my view.
for example, if you go a vacation...there's the actual vacation (result 1) and the lasting impression it leaves (result 2).
that's how I can imagine now and in the future...
the second part of your question makes no sense to me.

I second the gist by @Cesare Uberti. Karma dissolves only when you have attained nibbana / nirvana following dhamma through wisdom (frankly, being an ascetic really helps to concentrate better on the truth). No God/Gods/Goddess/Goddesses (if you are into some Mahayana ideas) can help you attain that; you are on your own.
Last but in no way the least important idea (in terms of execution) is that one does need the right Guru to travel faster through the mist and fog.


text:
What factors contribute to the act of walking?
What forces interact upon each other for a person to walk? Is it just the interplay of the senses and conditioning or is there free will/free action at play where you are actually the one choosing to walk?

This is where many need a bit of Abhidhamma. Actually, learning basics of Abhidhamma is needed, I think.

A physical way to (try to) escape suffering, good householder. Yet much faster as any vehicle, thats why the Buddha and his disciples chose this way for it. One all free will is obtained, it's furthermore best and most harmless way to share ones merits and give others possibilities to make merits till they possible one day will follow, walking from the houselife into the homeless and barefoot state. Giving freedom of fear and acting harmless for ones way out, is total free will, yet most wouldn't be willing, holding on.
Same for sitting, standing lying. Watch carefull what makes one(s') move. Kāyagatāsati.
It hardly works if making use of others effort, strength, but increases debt or uses old merits off.
Metta, right view, is the reason why one turns to walk, and the outwardly factor, aside of proper attention by listening, is association with wise. Otherwise it's just poorness that drives one to go on by feet.

According to Abhdidhama, there is a mental-factor (cetasika) called Intention (Cetana) but it is not free. It depends on conditions. Nevertheless it is an Intention.
The intention (cetana) to walk is arisen due to many conditions. (You can see it in the 24 causes in Patthana)
With the intention, and as a result of it, a physical force/push (Vayo dhatu) is arisen. This is called Cittaja-kiriya-vayo-dhatu according to the Abhidhamma.
Then this force (vayo dhatu) become a support (cause) to the physical body to move.
Vayo dhatu is defined as "The cause of movement (desantara-patubhuta-hetu)", which is Push/Pressure/Force.
A lesson series on such topics can be found at:
Fundamentals of Theravada Doctrine (International Institute of Theravada)


text:
Motivation and long-term practice
I have been meditating (samatha-vipassana within the Theravada tradition) for many years now, and I see myself always falling in the same pattern:
(1) I have periods of very high motivation, which can last 2-6 weeks, and in which I make lots of progress and develop good levels of insight and concentration (good access concentration, experiences of pity and sukha, more lucid insight on impermanence, etc.) I also read and watch lots of content on practice and get closer to people who share this "interest".
(2) When these phases wane, my sittings get increasingly filled with thoughts related to other life matters, especially things that demand high levels of engagement and to which I am somewhat attached (work projects, a new hobby, a new life development). I keep my regular practice (2hrs daily: 1hr in the morning, 1hr in the evening) but my concentration quickly decreases, and I struggle to stay with any object of meditation for long periods. Mindfulness in daily life also gradually disappears.
(3) This goes on until a reading, a conversation, a film or something apparently random brings me back into state (1).
Going through these phases, insight and understanding of practice is the only thing that very slowly accumulates, and gradually increases, but concentration and mindfulness really oscillate and always seem to get back to where I started, whenever I experience state (2).
I have observed this for many years, with many eyes and from many viewpoints inside myself, while sitting and while mindful in action. And what stands out to me is a certain quality of motivation (for lack of a better word) which manifests as a cluster of perceptions, emotions, physical patterns and thought processes. This motivation (like the so-called dopamine cycle, to which it is probably linked) seems to go through a growth phase to a peak, and then decrease.
I have tried to voluntarily trigger the growth of this motivation factor during the descending phase (2), by reading books and create commitments that relate to the practice, even though obviously part of me develops aversion or neutrality to the whole thing. This has rarely worked.
How do you deal with motivation swings on a scale such as this? What can I do to change this pattern and boost my progress? Observing all of this does not seem to have much of an impact, at least so far.

So you notice cycles in your practice?  Like you keep seeing the same pattern repeated over and over again?  Dare I say, its almost like a spinning wheel rolling and rolling ever onward almost under its own power?
You're trapped in a karmic cycle, buddy.  You keep falling for the same bait.  That buzz that you get at those high times?  They will invariable burn themselves out.  They always do.  And they will always be followed by those lulls where your motivation wanes and you can't muster the energy for practice.  Stop falling into that trap!
Practice has its highs, but it's not the heady high of new love or a new interest.  Real practice should be like a stroll.  We can't let ourselves go stagnant.  If we do, we'll never make any progress.  But we can't sprint either.  If we do, we lose our wind and find ourselves stopping long before our destination.
If I had any advice to give, it'd be to stop reading, stop trying to motivate yourself, and stop trying to create those periods of intensity.  All they're doing is leaving you thirsty when they invariably dry up.  Instead, make your practice completely ordinary - like brushing your teeth in the morning.  Brushing your teeth isn't terribly exciting.  I mean, no one goes through spurts where they get a buzz just thinking about fluoride and bristles. Assuming your teeth haven't already fallen out, it's probably just an ingrained pattern in your life.  You probably don't give it much thought.  Wake up, take a pee, brush your teeth.  It's automatic because you've accumulated so many uneventful repetitions since the time you were old enough to reach the tube of toothpaste in your parents' bathroom.  Let your practice be just another form of hygiene.  Stop trying to make it special.

Thanks, this is great advice and I very much appreciate it. I think there is much to be gained for me by taking a more "persistent" rather than "obsessed" approach.
I have been given the tooth-brushing advice before, but I haven't been able to benefit from that analogy.. Because it's something that you can force yourself to do mechanically, and you benefit from doing it even without being present while you do it.  [1/2]

The teeth-brushing approach does not work very well for meditation in my experience. If I sit down to meditate 2hrs a day (and I do) regardless of whether I feel like it or not, this is not going to make my practice better. It hasn't so far, at least. Because if I sit and my mind is wild, I bring it back whenever I can, but there is an overriding force that despite my efforts, in certain periods, makes concentration and mindfulness really almost impossible. I sit and think. Please bear in mind that I do sit regardless - 2hrs a day. But I haven't seen my practice improve as a result. [2/2]

But that's when you need to be practicing!  To bring this back to the tooth brushing analogy, only practicing when you are clear, on point, and mindful is like saying the only good tooth brushing happens when your teeth are already clean.  To use another analogy, it would saying the only time it makes sense to workout is when you are already in shape!  I can't say too much about your practice as I don't have much in the way of detail, but I really think you are riding this too hard and maybe a little overly concerned about results.  Sit like what you are doing is completely meaningless...

Sit like you'll never make any process.  When I start getting willful and try forcing my practice, I sit like I'm back at college waiting for a bus that may or may not ever come.  There is no good sitting, better sitting, or worse sitting.  There is only sitting.  Each one is determined by our contemporaneous karmic state.  There is no good or bad.  Each sit gives you exactly what you need.  Just be open to the whole process.  Welcome everything that comes.

Thanks for your contribution :)

"It’s good to remember that we’re not here just running 100-meter dashes. We’re running a marathon, which means you have to learn how to pace yourself. If you push yourself too hard, you won’t finish. If you don’t push yourself hard enough, you won’t finish.

[snip]

Even if you stumble, remember: This is a marathon, you can pick yourself up and keep going. If it were a 100-yard dash, if you stumbled that would be the end of it, you wouldn’t even try to finish. But in this case. you do pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and keep on running."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "How to Push Yourself" https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Published/Shorttalks/120403(short)_How_to_Push_Yourself.pdf

When other life matters intrude, those intrusions can actually be taken as excellent opportunities for practice. In those moments of attachment, we can choose to be mindful of the Buddha's teachings. We can choose to let go of desire and aversion for the world.

DN34:1.5.8: A mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

So instead of hanging on to a hobby success or a work challenge, we can face these attachments squarely and resolutely, thinking, "now is the time to be rid of desire and aversion for the world." Wouldn't that be a practice of mindfulness?
Mindfulness requires appraisal.

DN34:2.3.81: And how does a mendicant have four supports?
DN34:2.3.82: After appraisal, a mendicant uses some things, endures some things, avoids some things, and gets rid of some things.

For example, if we notice that the roof is leaking at the time of meditation, perhaps it would be prudent to use a bucket and put it under the leak before meditation. And if a hobby thought intrudes, perhaps it is best to be rid of that thought before meditating.

Refining right view, right resolve and with it virtue till right lifelihood, is ones right effort. Else comes based on given courses. As what motivates, what drives: Dukkha is cause of Sila, cause of Saddha. Saddha the begin of the supra-worldly path, good householder. This path isn't one for another gain then freedom from suffering.

[OP:] How do you deal with motivation swings on a scale such as this? What can I do to change this pattern and boost my progress? Observing all of this does not seem to have much of an impact, at least so far.

Imho, there's no secret sauce or magic formula to quickly solve the above issue, which is common to most practitioners. Looking from the cosmic perspective of many many rebirths ago, it does seem to make sense afterall: our mind has been operating in such chaotic/swinging mode for so long such that the few recent rebirths where we do get the opportunity to practice in accordance with the Buddha's Teaching simply have not generated sufficient strength to override that ingrained chaotic mode. So, like other poster's note about the "sprint vs. marathon" analogy, there's no secret or shortcut, one just have to keep cultivating the good Path persistently and consistently. And hopefully with sufficient time and effort, the new wholesome training will gain enough strength and stability to take over, dominate, and eventually eradicate the unwholesome one.


text:
Did buddha said anything about upanishad?
Did buddha said anything about upanishad. Did he consider upanishades teaching use full. Or did he rejected them like vedas.

Closely related: Did the Buddha ever mention the Upanishads or the Vedas?

Only the three Vedas (presumably Rg, Yajur and Sama Veda) are mentioned in the Pali suttas (the discourses of the Buddha). No other Hindu texts are mentioned.

It so happened that a
brahman student named Kapadika was seated in the assembly: young,
shaven-headed, sixteen years old, a master of the Three Vedas with
their vocabularies, liturgy, phonology, & etymologies, and the
histories as a fifth; skilled in philology & grammar, well-versed in
cosmology & the marks of a great man.
MN 95

According to Wikipedia's scholarly dates, the Vedas and the earliest Upanishads (Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya) came before the Buddha. Despite this, only three Vedas are ever referenced in the Pali suttas.
A few other Upanishads (Taittiriya, Aitareya, and Kausitaki) and the Nyaya school of logic may have developed around the same time as the Buddha.
If you look at the scholarly dates given in Wikipedia, all Vedanta schools, Samkhya, Yogasutras of Patanjali, Purva Mimamsa school, the rest of the Upanishads (Kena, Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, Mundaka, Prasna, Mandukya), Brahmasutras and Bhagavad Gita all came after the Buddha's time.

Thanks for the answer

The Upaniṣads were probably composed or in-composition during the Buddha's time, but it can be argued that they were not yet "mainstream" thought. If you go through the dating of the Upaniṣads on a resource like even Wikipedia, you will see some of them estimated to be immediately pre-Buddhist, some are contemporaneous with the Buddha, and some are post-Buddhist. In the EBTs ("Early Buddhist Texts"), the Brahmins are depicted as participating in a henotheistic-appearing religion where salvation is rebirth in the realm of their heavenly father (Brahmins are said to be "born of the mouth of Brahma" mukhato jātā brahmajā in the Madhurasutta).
There are some Upaniṣadic views put into the mouths of Brahmin ascetics in the EBTs, such as the view "so loko so attā" (the self and the cosmos are the same) given in the Brahmajālasutta. All-in-all,  in the oldest layers of Buddhist scripture, the Brahmins are depicted with more stereotypically "theistic" doctrines than the more philosphically-refined Upaniṣadic doctrines.

The Sublime Buddha didn't praise any sect and any variant of the many self-view and extremes (exist, not exist, ending, endless...), but nevertheless taught them sometimes, out of compassion. "If they understand only some words, it would be of great benefit for them.
What does good householder think: How many different kinds of views are present under those calling them Upanishades?