text:
How do Buddhists reconcile Buddha's descriptions of past lives with modern Cosmology and natural history?
This is NOT a duplicate question. Have seen other similar questions but their questions were very different from what I am about to ask.
The modern Cosmology is clear. 13.8 billion years ago, the Universe started to form, then 4.5 billion years ago the Earth was formed, then 3 billion years ago primitive forms of life was created, then 200,000 years ago early humans came to existence, and finally we have modern human civilizations about 5000 years ago.
This is in sharp contrast to Buddha's claims of having past lives hundreds of thousands of years ago, millions of years ago, billions of years ago, trillions of years ago, etc when there was either no life or no humans. Buddha already lived close to the formation of human civilization, he couldn't have possibly lived so many lives given in vivid details in Jataka tales and other scriptures when there were no human civilizations or humans to begin with.
So, how do Buddhists deal with this? Do they deny science? Do they think that millions of years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there was Buddha? Do they think when the Universe wasn't even formed trillions of years ago, Buddha lived a life? If you guys accept Science, does that mean Buddha lied all along? Did he just make up those stories to attract more followers?

I had to edit something so I could fix the kinda accidental downvote.

The scriptures (called 'sutta') attributed to the Buddha actually have extremely few descriptions of past lives and these few scriptures are often in conflict with natural history, such as with events in these few scriptures occurring in the same towns in India & having the same technological development as during Gotama Buddha's lifetime. Scriptures about 'past Buddhas' occurring many 'eons' in the past are similar. One can only conclude they were fictions composed after the Buddha's passing. None of this fiction diminishes the Buddha's Teaching because the Buddha taught two types of teachings:

Teachings of liberating truth.
Teachings leading to merit (goodness).

When one formally takes refuge in The Teachings, it is exclusively refuge in the verifiable teachings of liberating truth. The other type of teachings are merely optional.

The Jataka tales were not spoken by the Buddha but came after. The best record we have of what the Buddha spoke is the Pali Canon.
In the Pali Canon details about the Buddha’s past lives are much more scant. It is also not clear to what extent any given sutta in the Pali Canon is authentic; modern scholars agree that changes and additions have been made to the canon, although the consensus is that the general structure of the teachings have remained intact. So I take them with a grain of salt.
Nonetheless the general teaching is that past lives extend back trillions of years. In Buddhist cosmology the universe expands and contracts - this is not incompatible with modern physics - look up “big crunch” theories.
Specific stories about the Buddha’s past lives, or about things like the 32 marks of a great man, to me look like they are likely later additions.
But okay, how is it possible that the Buddha claimed to have human lives going back millions of years? I understand this “realm” we live in to be a specific material realm which includes animals and would include alien species. Going back in time, the past lives could be alien species which are similar to humanity because they are in the same material realm.
That is how I reconcile it.

So, how do Buddhists deal with this? Do they deny Science?
If I can call myself "a Buddhist" then I'd say no, generally not.
Do they think that millions of years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there was Buddha? How do Buddhists reconcile Buddha's descriptions of past lives with modern Cosmology and natural history?
Personally, if a sutta said that something happened "a hundred thousand generations ago", I wouldn't imagine that means literally "2 million years ago" -- I read it as a metaphor for Time immemorial, and (its literal meaning being) the least important part of the sentence.
How many "moments" have you experienced in your life? I guess it's "uncountable" in some sense.
It's irrelevent or secondary to the main problem (e.g. that the people you love are dying or dead).
You might want to read Wikipedia's Buddhism and science or something like that. One phrase I noticed there was,

Therefore, while the Dalai Lama thinks that evolution "gives us a fairly coherent account of the evolution of human life on earth," he also holds that karma and consciousness have central roles in nature and therefore biology cannot explain all aspects of life (such as consciousness, religious experience or morality).

Did he just make up those stories to attract more followers?
The Buddhist texts may contain some imprecise or metaphorical language. Like some children's stories begin with, "Once upon a time", that doesn't detract from their importance nor make them untrue.
The first stories they taught me at school, had me memorize, were from La Fontaine. They're obviously not literally true -- fables -- but they're moral and apparently worth teaching.
Another thing is that the Buddhist doctrines are very extensive. You might find one or two questiuonable details (e.g here or here); but I think it's nonsense to disparage the doctrine as "claims" or "lies" or "stories to attract more followers" -- also wrong (mistaken) to pose it as a dichotomy with "Science".

Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Science is a Dhamma called Dhamma niyama. It means that teachings of Science are not-Self.
What are the teachings of science? Science teaches that evidence of a phenomena must be repeatable in time and the evidence should be verifiable by anyone.
Why is Science not-self ? Because it’s teachings are impermanent.
How is it impermanent? It is impermanent because evidence based science can fail to repeat itself in time and the evidence can vary from person to person. Or , the evidence based science can change in time.
Therefore if science says universe is 13 billion years old then this fact can change in time. Science may have to conclude that Universe is only 60 years old. Or, Science might conclude that Universe is a figment of imagination.The cosmological facts can change depending on new found evidence.
If we meditate from emptiness point of view we realise that all phenomena are empty of self. The space is infinite but the space arises , changes and vanishes.
Another example of impermanence would be this : it is said that Earth is attracted to Sun gravitationally. However this fact can change and it can be concluded that Earth is attracted to Sun because of magnetism!!!
We need to see things from a perspective of impermanence. It applies to all conditioned phenomena, including cosmology and the teachings of cosmology.
Buddhas lived many lives but in the end he says that all those worlds or lives were not self. In other words , that life or lives were not me , mine or myself.

The age of the universe stated at roughly 13.8 billion years is based on the ΛCDM model. It is the current standard cosmological model. However, this model is not without its criticisms. You can read about the issues with this model in the wiki link referenced.
Not too long ago, the latest observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) even prompted arguments for and against the age of the universe to be twice as old. Such controversies will likely occur with new observations and discoveries (although the latest is that the 26.7 billion years old theory appears to be debunked).
Personally, I am more concerned that we have a model that attributed more than 95% of the universe as dark energy and dark matter, yet both of these are not experimentally verified or detected. Without a better understanding or idea of these things, we cannot come up with a better cosmological model and we are kind of stuck in a vicious loop.
Why is a better model important? Firstly, it will either affirm or change the age of the universe as we currently know. Secondly, it could potentially answer the question if our universe is cyclical as believed in both Buddhism and Hinduism.
Although the OP didn’t exactly state it, I believe they might be alluding to the sutras mentioning that there are prior Buddhas (DN14) before our Buddha Gautama. Even within this same aeon, there had been 3 other Buddhas i.e. Kakusandha, Konagamana and Kassapa. Which would seem incredulous because wouldn't they be in the age of the dinosaurs!? I could be wrong but I believe that in the Mahayana tradition, there is a belief that these 3 prior Buddhas could have existed in other galaxies and not necessary ours. To assume that all life can only existed on this planet in the Milky Way displays a lack of imagination.
Personally, as a Buddhist, proving the 2nd point (of a cyclical universe) is actually more interesting. A proof of a cyclic universe model would lend additional credence to the idea of rebirth as many of the sutras (e.g. DN14 linked above) mentioned about different rebirths in prior aeons. I believe this proof will have profound spiritual and soul-searching implications for many.
Lastly, I think we need to be patient. As mentioned, there is still a lot about the universe that we currently lack experimental and verified data on. It is really hard to decide on the truth when more than 95% of the evidence is unverified or uncertain. With Metta.

So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the previous births of Buddha is from different galaxies and previous Universe during previous cycles of cosmos?

Same universe but different galaxies. This aeon is special as there are five Buddhas. Buddha Maitreya being the fifth and last Buddha of this aeon. In other aeons, there is usually only one Buddha.

The modern cosmology is not clear. It is a highly reasonable assertion. There are counter theories as to the age of the universe. Centuries ago, gravity was not discovered. It does not entail that gravity did not exist. Once Newton gave a theory of gravity, it was defeated by Einstein's theory of relativity. It did not mean that gravity changed- it meant how we as humans understood nature through physics became much more aligned with observed phenomena. Physics is not set in stone. A conferences can happen tomorrow in which new results are published which disproves what was held true till today. Furthermore, if science has not been able to prove life after life, then the onus is on the scientists to come up with the measurements or experiments. As philosophers, Buddhists have given their reasonable and logical account of it. There is a difference between science and scientism. Some people against the scientifc temperament, hold on to views uncritically.
As a point of information in contemporary research, you will find Madhyamaka interpretation of quantum physics. So there are people, who not being cynical and being open-minded, approach things and thus are able to reconcile. People who ask out of cynicism or are close-minded cannot hope for reconciliation.
As another point of information, I counter-question you- where is the atom? or even the electron.-> There is no atom or electron- those are labels we have for a set of phenomena which is observed under certain conditions. So, again, what physics is and what someone believes it to be are different things. Similarly, what Buddhism speaks about rebirth and what people assume it means, are different things.


text:
Finding the truth
I have been meditating for a month it happens because i needed to find truth and what is the real happiness.i am meditating 20 minutes(15-20) three times a day . I always thinking while meditating if i have any kusal(merit) please show me the path of truth.recently when meditating i feel only body  exists every feeling in only on body.it is like controlling a robo(body) while on it. It was very hard to explain, but now i need to go out on my body and find what im searching . can anyone please explain something about  this
Actually, what i am saying is that true happiness is  now. im too tired of my life every time i saw reality. Everything make me sad , and everything is temporary.

Bro you need to take a break it's burnout, I also feel like that sometimes, I prefer to travel or spend time with my friends to get over it. I think Meditation may worsen the situation, there is a state called trans people tend to behave like they are messenger of God in such state, they may even walk on burning coal , our mind is complex bio computer so it may create false experiences don't fall in this trap of spirituality, how can you find truth if you are not ok? if you want a quick fix Osho is a good guru it's your choice but I think you need him, may you be blessed

Your question isn't related to Buddhism directly but I was in such situation and since I am too an undergrad I can understand that this phase is frustrating!
Our brain changes a alot from birth to adolescence, it grows in its size and in number of cells contained within. The human brain attains peak processing power and memory around age 18. After studying how intelligence changes over time, scientists found that participants in their late teens had the highest performance. Nonetheless, this age can be one of mood swings, sulking, a craving for privacy and short tempers. Young children are not able to think far ahead, but young teens can and do—which allows them to worry about the future.These changes don't stop once you turn 18 but it grows with time and may settle down once full maturity is attained. So our feelings are natural.
This is great video to understand why we are uncomfortable while we aren't doing anything challenging. I was in same phase and still sometimes feel it but after consulting with a physician found out that everyone goes through it and it heals with time.
Meditation when performed correctly is good but I have left it after similar experiences as yours, Buddha's teachings are very helpful to live a moral life but Vipassana (done under experienced instructor) is great tool too. Personally, personalities like osho or j krishnamurti are also helpful since you can listen to them through video recordings whereas what you know about Buddha's orginal teachings is all third person narrative (it doesn't mean it's useless but we should be careful).
At last this site is not for this kind of answers but helping you was important, try to be ordinary finding joy in things like cooking with granny, taking uncle's dog on walk or just going on short trips with friends or solo has helped me instead of meditation and doing random pyschological experimentation. If your symptoms persist even after doing all this please consult with your physician tell it to your parents or friends but believe me it's just a illusion Truth is not found meditating!(and I have a solid argument for it)
This is piece  of J krishnamurti's book freedom from know it was eye opener for me that I was on wrong track which you too are.

Man has throughout the ages been seeking something beyond himself,
beyond material welfare - something we call truth or God or reality, a timeless
state - something that cannot be disturbed by circumstances, by thought or by
human corruption. Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning
at all? He sees the enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the revolt, the wars,
the endless divisions of religion, ideology and nationality, and with a sense of
deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing we call
living, is there anything beyond it?
And not finding this nameless thing of a thousand names which he has always
sought, he has cultivated faith - faith in a saviour or an ideal - and faith invariably
breeds violence.

One can see directly that it is only when the mind is silent that there is a
possibility of clarity. The whole purpose of meditation in the East is to bring about
such a state of mind - that is, to control thought, which is the same as constantly
repeating a prayer to quieten the mind and in that state hoping to understand
one's problems. But unless one lays the foundation, which is to be free from fear,
free from sorrow, anxiety and all the traps one lays for oneself, I do not see how it
is possible for a mind to be actually quiet. This is one of the most difficult things to
communicate. Communication between us implies, doesn't it, that not only must
you understand the words I am using but that we must both, you and I, be intense
at the same time, not a moment later or a moment sooner and capable of
meeting each other on the same level? And such communication is not possible
when you are interpreting what you are reading according to your own
knowledge, pleasure or opinions, or when you are making a tremendous effort to
comprehend.

That word had been used
both in the East and the West in a most unfortunate way. There are different
schools of meditation, different methods and systems. There are systems whichsay, `Watch the movement of your big toe, watch it, watch it, watch it; there are
other systems which advocate sitting in a certain posture, breathing regularly or
practising awareness. All this is utterly mechanical. The other method gives you a
certain word and tells you that if you go on repeating it you will have some
extraordinary transcendental experience. This is sheer nonsense. It is a form of
self-hypnosis. By repeating Amen or Om or Coca-Cola indefinitely you will
obviously have-a certain experience because by repeti- tion the mind becomes
quiet. It is a well known phenomenon which has been practised for thousands of
years in India - Mantra Yoga it is called. By repetition you can induce the mind to
be gentle and soft but it is still a petty, shoddy, little mind.

Meditation demands an astonishingly alert mind; meditation is the
understanding of the totality of life in which every form of fragmentation has
ceased. Meditation is not control of thought, for when thought is controlled it
breeds conflict in the mind, but when you understand the structure and origin of
thought, which we have already been into, then thought will not interfere.

Meditation is not following any system; it is not constant repetition and
imitation. Meditation is not concentration. It is one of the favourite gambits of
some teachers of meditation to insist on their pupils learning concentration - that
is, fixing the mind on one thought and driving out all other thoughts. This is a
most stupid, ugly thing, which any schoolboy can do because he is forced to. It means that all the time you are having a battle between the insistence that you
must concentrate on the one hand and your mind on the other which wanders
away to all sorts of other things, whereas you should be attentive to every
movement of the mind wherever it wanders. When your mind wanders off it
means you are interested in something else.
Meditation demands an astonishingly alert mind; meditation is the
understanding of the totality of life in which every form of fragmentation has
ceased. Meditation is not control of thought, for when thought is controlled it
breeds conflict in the mind, but when you understand the structure and origin of
thought, which we have already been into, then thought will not interfere.

It's not directly from Buddhism but it is great knowledge.

The meditation of the Buddha does not leave the body. The Kayagata-sati Sutta: Mindfulness Immersed in the Body is a sutta about the whole path. Again, in AN 4.45, the Buddha said the whole path is within the body.

For it is in this fathom-long carcass [body] with its perception and mind
that I describe the world, its origin, its cessation and the practice [path]
that leads to its cessation.
AN 4.45

True happiness starts with the development of samatha (tranquility), which depends on keeping the mind within the body.

Everything make me sad, and everything is temporary.

We all have been there, sometimes I feel sad, too.
The only reason we are sad though, is because we expected it to be different. So it is our expectation that is wrong, not life.
If you keep running away from this, it will keep happening. It's only when you look at it straight in the face, and keep looking for a long time without much thinking, that's when it resolves.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is impersonating breaking the 4th Buddhist precept?
Most if not all of us had used alias, pseudonym or avatar at one time or another while interacting with others on the Internet. There may be good reasons for doing so such as the desire to protect our privacy, fear of intimidation or to criticize people in power without fear of retaliation. Of course, there could be less than noble reasons as well.
Is the use of alias, pseudonym or avatar i.e. impersonation considered breaking the 4th Buddhist precept of lying? If using an alias, pseudonym or avatar is alright then why stop at one? What is wrong with using more than one impersonating identity? If a person created multiple accounts in a forum (like the one I am writing in) and there is no explicit rule forbidding it, is it alright?
Appreciate if answers would cover the subject from a Buddhist perspective.

I read that one should avoid "white" lies.

Strictly perhaps we're many of us on thin ice for using pseudonyms or nicknames instead of "real names" for our main account -- but it's just a name, and conventional (online). If I could ask you to clarify the question, what does "no desire to deceive" mean do you think? Because I can scarcely imagine why I'd use a second account with a different nickname, except to "deceive" users into supposing this was different person using the other account (except perhaps in some edge-cases, like if my other account were also named "ChrisW" or something like that).

@ChrisW I suppose most people treat their online account as an avatar. Personally, I draw the line against opening multiple accounts as it does feel like the intention is to deceive. It will be good if the mods feel likewise to explicitly state a rule against doing this. Altho, enforcement is an issue. From my observations, this seems to be happening, again I don't presume to understand the motive behind thus my qn. Thanks.

ChrisW. Nobody here is on thin ice according to Buddhism.

I’m voting to close this question because this question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice, within the scope defined in the help center.  Instead, the question appears to come from the perspective of Identitarian Ideology.

@DhammaDhatu I think it's normal. Personally I've chosen to use something resembling my "real name" for decades because I found if I'm anonymous I was sometimes sillier, posting jokes and getting a bit lost. I don't (of course) dislike your using the user-name you do. When I said "strictly", for example there are people who won't "own" a user-account and therefore don't post here (perhaps because of how they interpret the Vinaya) -- so I'm not sure it's true that "nobody" is on thin ice here, some (other) "strict" people seem to think it's dubious behaviour; I didn't mean to reprove it myself.

Dhamma , the law of kamma, etc, is not related to any chatsite administration.

@ChrisW I think you have a clear position on this question. It would be good if you can answer in proper. It may not help the stubborn ones but it will provide clarity and insights to the others. Thanks.

@Desmon By "this question" do you mean, "Does it break the 4th precept" or "What is the rule about this on this Stack Echange site"?

In the mean time, if you think that some account is the same person as another account and breaking the rules, you can please "flag" the account (or one of the account's post) for moderator attention -- include a message like, "I think this account is the same person as [that account] because [reasons]." Thanks.

@ChrisW Yes, this question as in “Is impersonating breaking...”. No to the 2nd part if there is already a guideline on having multiple registered accounts by the same person i.e. impersonating using different email addresses.

There are stack exchange guidelines, and no site-specific guideline. The existent site-specific guidelines are identified by the [meta-tag:faq] tag on Meta, and summarized in the FAQ index (summary of site policies). To create any new site-specific we generally discuss that on Meta first -- it's not only a consensus of the moderators but of the "community" (i.e. people who discuss it on Meta). That's why I asked "which question" -- i.e. did you mean this question (about Buddhist doctrine), or a new meta-question (about site policy)?

@ChrisW thanks for the clarification. My first priority is to get a good answer for my question posted. Whether there is a guideline touching the same issue is incidental.

It is important to study the suttas, which do not look  favorably upon the outcomes for those with wrong view. There appears to be a view on the internet that any contribution to a Buddhist chatsite, even if is the habitual speaking/posting of wrong  views, is good karma. It can be compared to people who perform bad actions but believe attending church every Sunday will absolve them of their sins. The suttas do not appear to support this perspective. An individual can have many accounts with many different user names but if that individual only posts right view, the Dhamma supports them.

Maybe it depends on intention.
For example, on Stack Exchange

A permitted/expected reasons for using a different name is for anonymity -- for example if you're a well-known user on a site, and you want to ask or answer a question without other people knowing it's "you".
In that case perhaps it's not intention to deceive, it's just the more well-known persona keeping quiet (which isn't a lie), with the question being asked or answered by another persona (also not a lie).

Or there are some forbidden reasons for using several accounts:

When one account up-votes another, or even answers a question asked by the first
Or when one account is suspended, and you use another account to avoid the suspension

One of these is harmless concealment of identity; the other is "breaking rules" or "avoiding restrictions" which the site implements to try to guide the behaviour of users (e.g. "don't upvote your own posts").
Perhaps the difference is subtle but I suppose that's the answer. This answer says that the essense of the fourth precept is the intention to deceive.

Thanks for the link, the answers given were of high qualities. Yes, intention is the key. If using multiple accounts with the intent to circumvent account restrictions, rules on upvoting own question or answer or to repeat upvote/downvote i.e. restrictions placed on a single account then it is an unskillful intention.

The suttas say about false speech:

He speaks falsehood. If he is summoned to a council, to an assembly, to his relatives’ presence, to his guild, or to the court, and questioned as a witness thus: ‘So, good man, tell what you know,’ then, not knowing, he says, ‘I know,’ or knowing, he says, ‘I do not know’; not seeing, he says, ‘I see,’ or seeing, he says, ‘I do not see.’ Thus he consciously speaks falsehood for his own ends, or for another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end.
AN 10.211

In the Aṅgulimāla Sutta, the Buddha performed a feat of psychic power:

Then the Lord performed such a wonder of psychic power that the robber Aṅgulimāla, although walking with all his strength, was not able to catch up with the Lord who was walking at an ordinary pace.

Similarly, there is a story, somewhere, about a lady who was romantically in love with the Buddha therefore the Buddha performed a feat of psychic power causing his physical appearance to gradually age, which resulted in the lust of the lady dissolving.
A Mahayana webpage says:

In the Universal Gate Chapter, Bodhisattva Guanyin (Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, in Sanskrit) transformed into different manifestations in accordance with different causes and conditions. Bodhisattva Guanyin has 33 different kinds of manifestations, including taking the form of sacred entities, devas, humans, the fourfold assembly, women, young boys and girls, the eightfold assembly, and vajrapani deities. Bodhisattva Guanyin transforms into various kinds of manifestations, using skillful means to attune to different sentient beings' temperaments and needs.
Why does Bodhisattva Guanyin often manifest into a female form, if he has a myriad amount of manifestations?

In conclusion, the Buddha performing physical impersonations with psychic powers is not related to false speech because the impersonation is a physical & mental action and not a verbal action. The same applies to Bodhisattva who manifest various forms for the sake of saving sentient beings from from wrong views that lead to hell or animal birth.

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


text:
What is happening?
Sometimes when I meditate it feels like I completely lose all awareness of where I am and what I'm doing. Its like I blink and the hour has gone. I don't remember anything. It's like a blackout. I'm not sure if it's a good or a bad thing?

Did you fall asleep?

It is the opposite of everything that meditation is supposed to be- meditation (in buddhism) can be broadly put in 2 categories- awareness and analytical. Analytical requires awareness. Thus, to not have awareness at all, in the context of your question, is a bad thing.

What do you try to do when you meditate?

No it wasn't sleep. I think maybe I experienced anatta. Completely lost all sense of self and boundaries. Just disappeared. It feels really nice.

Giving you benefit of doubt I assume you aren't lying, just want to ask can you hear surrounding noises? If a mosquito bites you in that state do you feel itching? If your answers are negative then stop doing it now similar case happened with Swami Vivekananda he was meditating when he left his body.

Try changing your meditation style, like point meditation. Meditate on a single point for a time and see if the same things happen there too.

It could be fruition. Compare Daniel Ingram's description:

Fruition (phala in Pali) is the fruit of all the meditator’s hard
work, the first attainment of ultimate reality, emptiness, nirvana,
nibbana, ultimate potential, or whatever extrapolative and relatively
inaccurate name you wish to call something utterly non-sensate. In
this non-state, there is absolutely no time, no space, no reference
point, no experience, no mind, no consciousness, no awareness, no
background, no foreground, no nothingness, no somethingness, no body,
no this, no that, no unity, no duality, and no anything else.
“Reality” stops cold and then reappears.
Thus, this is impossible to comprehend, as it goes completely and
utterly beyond the rational mind and the universe. In “external time”
(if we were observing the meditator) this stage typically lasts only
an instant (though the question of “duration” will be addressed
below). It is like an utter discontinuity of the space-time continuum
with nothing in the unfindable gap, exactly like what happens when
someone edits out a frame or sequence of frames of a movie. It is not
that you see a blank screen for a while where they edited the frames
out, instead that part of the movie is just not there.

The book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha gives a lot more detail and some criteria by which to assess what kind of experience you had.

It sounds like falling asleep. This hindrance to meditation is called 'sloth & torpor'.

Any sloth is a hindrance. Any drowsiness is a hindrance. Thus what comes under the heading of ‘the hindrance of sloth & drowsiness’ becomes, by means of this exposition, twofold.
SN 46.52

On any occasion the mind is sluggish, that is the wrong time to develop calm as a factor for awakening, concentration as a factor for awakening, equanimity as a factor for awakening. Why is that? The sluggish mind is hard to raise up by those mental qualities.
On any occasion when the mind is sluggish, that is the right time to develop analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, persistence as a factor for awakening, rapture as a factor for awakening. Why is that? The sluggish mind is easy to raise up by those mental qualities. Just as if a man, wanting to make a small fire blaze up, were to place dry grass in it, dry cow dung, & dry sticks; were to blow on it with his mouth and not smother it with dust.
AN 46.53

But I don't think it is is sleeping as I'm sitting up and not nodding etc. I know when I'm falling asleep because my head falls forward


text:
Where are 70 verses attributed to Nagarjuna from?
Where are the 70 verses of Nagarjuna from?  Is it from Mulamukhyamakakarika or elsewhere? Is it a reconstruction of other works or original?

It is a separate work altogether. You can find an English translation of it online- one of them goes by the title - Nagarjuna's Seventy Stanzas: A Buddhist Psychology of Emptiness.
It is not from Mulamadhyamakakarika or any other work of Nagarjuna or anyone else. Not a reconstructed work.

just in case someone else stumbles upon this question i would add the transliterated name of the verses is Sunyatasaptati

also the version i downloaded - exactly 70 verses - was by a Dr. Jay Garfield, but there is another version of 73 verses that seems more authentic.


text:
What are four types of authoritative cognition according to Chandrakirti?
wiki says this:
Therefore we assert that mundane objects are known through the four kinds of authoritative cognition. They are mutually dependent: when there is authoritative cognition, there are objects of knowledge; when there are objects of knowledge, there is authoritative cognition. But neither authoritative cognition nor objects of knowledge exist inherently.[69]
same page says this:
Buddhism accepts only two pramana (tshad ma) as valid means to knowledge: Pratyaksha (mngon sum tshad ma, perception) and Anumāṇa (rjes dpag tshad ma, inference).
Regardless, what are those four kinds of authoritative cognition according to Chandrakirti?

https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/science-of-mind/ways-of-knowing/lorig-ways-of-knowing


text:
How do someone find romantic love?
As someone in his 30s, I wish to find a partner to grow old with. At the same time, it’s quite stressful that nowadays my family and friends are constantly pushing me to find someone quickly as I am getting older. I never had a relationship and never felt this pressure, but I don’t understand what I am missing here to feel this restless.

I can’t function in daily life if I’m constantly thinking about “How will I get this girl to date me?”
If I rush into a relationship, I might end up with someone not compatible which will cause more suffering.

I tried reading about it from a Buddhist perspective. But everything I found mostly describe how to sustain romantic relationships. I would really appreciate if someone could help.

Buddhism strongly emphasizes identifying a compatible partner, as shown in the following two scriptures:

Samajivina Sutta: Living in Tune

Paṭhamasaṁvāsa Sutta: Living Together

A summary with brief commentary of some of the Buddhist teachings on this subject is found at this link: Buddhist's life standards: The Partner
One criteria not mentioned that is relevant for current life (due to medical birth control) is whether or not prospective partners wish to have children or not.

I'm not a teacher, just a student.
When I abstained for years from any kind of sexual relationships I found out  I needed no one, as if my desire was gone, I started to see people differently, boys and girls, and had better friendships with all kinds of people.
Later, when I stopped  being celibate, I found myself wanting a relationship, I wanted a girlfriend by my side and started to see girls with desire - I saw them for what they could be in my life, and felt the urge to have sex. So I guess normal people see with desire, people of the sex they are attracted to.
What I can say is that you can end that desire if you practice Buddhism. I know it might be hard but try to abstain from all sex. If you feel that urge, say no to that energy below - go for a walk, go to pee as that can give you urges, or search online for some techniques.
I say this because for you to practice tantric sex you need to know other more advanced techniques. So normal sex, even though it's ok to have it, it won't give you nirvana.
If you manage to practice celibacy you might find a friend, without the eyes of desire, and maybe who knows with time you might fall in love in love for him/her. And if you are a Buddhist, I would advise for you to be a part of a Buddhist sangha and to find a Buddhist practitioner you like.
You can ignore celibacy if you are not ready. But if you are, you will feel better in case you pull it off.
At the same time, there are many Buddhists out there who don't practice celibacy and want the same as you.
There is another question here from a similar nature:
How can I remove my desire for a relationship/ girlfriend?

Everything is romantic. You can romance with anyone if you are compassionate. Understand that no one is perfect. You will have to make an effort to love your date. Sometimes it will be easy , sometimes it will be difficult. From my point of view if I find someone immediately lovable then it is good but if I find someone not likeable at first sight then it is much better because it will let me grow up. It will let me understand that it takes effort to be compassionate and loving.
It is your choice but if I was in your position I will choose what forces me to make an effort to like the love of my life.


text:
What does 'name-and-form' mean?
In the book In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from Pali Canon by Bhikku Bodhi, I read:

When there is no name-and-form, consciousness does not come to be; with the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of consciousness.

What is the meaning of name-and-form; whose name and what form? How is the arising and cessation of consciousness linked with it?

please search this site, there are dozens of questions and answers on this topic.

Possibly related: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17760/consciousness-and-name-form

Name & form is a misnomer. Traditionally, in Theravada Buddhism, it is translated as 'mind-body' or 'mentality-materiality', including in Bhikkhu Bodhi's original 1995 translation of the Majjhima Nikaya. Bhikkhu Bodhi appeared to change his later translations due to coming under the influence of the Ajahn Brahm sect.
The term 'name-form', i.e., 'nama-rupa', is a pre-Buddhist term from the SamaVeda, in a section now known as or that evolved into the Chandogya Upanishad, which says:

That Deity, having entered into the three gods (three elements of
earth, fire & water), saw, ‘I shall manifest name and form, the
unmanifested name and form which, as seeds, exist in me’… Name and
form came into existence on account of this action of multiplication
brought about by the triplication of the (three) elements by the Will
of the Supreme Being…

It appears the Buddha adopted the term nama-rupa in order to both redefine & debunk it. The Buddha defined nama-rupa as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form.
SN 12.2

Therefore, instead of nama-rupa referring to the multiplication of earth, fire & water by the Will of God; the Buddha refined this nama-rupa to refer to the multiplication of three sankhara born of ignorance using mental volition, inappropriate attention & the on-going pursuit of sense objects via the six sense bases.
In many places, such as MN 38 & SN 22.53, the Buddha taught consciousness cannot arise without sense organs, sense objects & other aggregates. It follows, in suttas such as SN 12.65 & SN 22.82, it is said nama-rupa is required for consciousness to arise.
In other words, the idea consciousness is reincarnated from life to life is impossible in the original teachings of the Buddha because there can be no arising of consciousness without rupa (the physical body derived from the four physical elements).
In summary, the Buddha said consciousness is dependent upon the mind & the body, as follows:

The six classes of consciousness should be understood. ’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises; dependent on the nose and odours, nose-consciousness arises; dependent on the tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises; dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six classes of consciousness should be understood.’ This is the third set of six.
MN 148

The term nama-rupa is also found in the later Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, with a meaning retained in modern Hinduism and also found in the later sutta DN 15. The notions in DN 15 are not discussed in the earliest commentary The Patisambiddhamagga or in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. In short, it appears for many obvious reasons the Buddha never spoke DN 15. Those who insist the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad pre-dated the Buddha appear obviously wrong. Nama-rupa in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is generated by the Atman, which is Brahman. The Upanishad & later Hindu concept of Atman being Brahman is never discussed in the Pali suttas. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is obviously a later text, as is DN 15. It is obvious the Buddha adopted the term 'nama-rupa' from the more primitive or Deity centred Chandogya Upanishad. DN 15 appears obviously a text composed by later monks to challenge the later Brihadaranyaka_Upanishad.

Thank you for this history! The implications are interesting...
A rock is an aggregate of the four elements. And so is a plant. And so is a human. All three are examples of "form" but it would be a stretch to apply "body" to a rock. Even applying "body" to a plant is a stretch, but plants perceive and turn to light. How does using "body" improve our understanding?

Thank you. My impression is the term nama-rupa used by the Buddha is referring to the nama-rupa of a 'person' or 'homo sapien'. Therefore, when ignorance arises, causing impulses (asava), these mental impulses directly affect the physical organism (rupa).  Therefore, the nama-rupa, both mentality & physically, is aroused to pursue the internal objects of ignorance externally via the six sense bases. For example, sexual urge (asava) arises causing sexual thoughts (sankhara) which then causes arousal of sexual organs (rupa) then pursuing sex objects (sense contact). Regards

Yes. Body does make more sense in the context of consciousness. Thanks!

In dependent origination, dependent on consciousness, name-and-form (namarupa) arises. Name-and-form represents a mind-body system that operates together, like software-and-hardware.
If you read the definitions of "name" (feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention) and "form" (form made up of four great elements) from SN 12.2, they read like definitions of parts of mind and body respectively.
The body is called "form" because it is the form-sensor, that senses external forms. The mind is called "name" because it is the name-assigner, that assigns names to the forms sensed by the body. So the terms name(-assigner) and form(-sensor) describe functions of the mind and the body in the combination of namarupa.
Consciousness is the mind-body connection, and it's supported by:

Name, reverends, is one end. Form is the second end. Consciousness is
the middle. And craving is the seamstress, for craving weaves one to
being reborn in one state of existence or another.
AN 6.61

Name-and-form (mind-body) has a mutually dependent relationship with the six types of consciousness according to SN 12.67, like two sheaves of reed leaning on each other.
To put it another way, the mind-body system (name-and-form) depends on the mind-body connection (consciousness) and the mind-body connection (consciousness) depends on the mind-body system (name-and-form).

I am not correcting what you say as it is perfectly fine but to add form itself is not only related to physical form. For an example, the number 1 is a form. This number is a mental concept, not physical, but it has been given a form, it "is" a phenomena that we understand and can communicate about, this is form (and name).

@Remyla Based on the definition of "form" in name-and-form in SN 12.2, it's derived from the four great elements - earth, fire, water and air.

As a Theravada Buddhist.
1)  Name :

The name means what you call "me"(yourself). The naming yourself as me, my, mine.
This is the thing people say 'I will born in a good country in the next life.' the thing that they believe is me, myself. People give this 'name' unique casual names for practical day-to-day life. Which people use to call each other (as in birth certificate).

Think of the name as a concept of whole conciseness at the primary level.
But it's not the actual conciseness.
It's like the bond you(conciseness) have to the physical world by saying this is me, myself, mine.

2)  Form :

what is physical in a living being(human, animal, god(gods in Buddhism), Bahama).

A rock and a tree both only have form. They don't have a name, cause they don't have a conciseness.
You may see plants react to light, gravity, and water which all are just complex evolutions of a rock. They are just physical, chemical reactions. No conciseness is involved.
So they both have no name just form.

No part of the form goes to the next life.

At normal death, only this 'form' gets destroyed and separated from 'name'.

This form is just what you have in this life. It will be different in the next and next.

This form can be an animal body, a god(gods in Buddhism) body, Bahama body. An any living being.

Except some special cause(which I would not go into now), In a living being always has form(+name).

It is really not that complicated.
"I, me, you" including your personal name and others names is/are name.
Form is the perception of a being inhabiting that name in conclusion from you perceiving it's name.
Though as stated above in other comments these are interlinked, as almost they happen simultaneously in a mental process.
I prefer the tree analogy as an explanation. It is simple and gives you something to work with yourself:
If you look at a tree your mind thinks tree but if you dichotomize the tree into its individual parts, there are leaves, bark, roots, branches...wood.
There is no actual tree, what you are doing is seeing multiple things, amalgamating them and equating a name on the combination of these "things" calling it a tree which in turn gives it the form tree. From your perception.
Do you think a fly, a bird, a spider, or a single celled organism sees a tree?
You can use this logical rationalisation on all phenomena, but the main phenomena you need to use it on is your own sense of self.

Name and form are easy to understand. Take for example a disease which has been found spreading globally. We give this disease a name ,corona and a form of a spherical kind. How did this virus called corona came to be? First there was ignorance which gave rise to volitional formations. Volitional formations gave rise to corona consciousness. Corona consciousness gave rise to corona name and form.
On other hand , if corona consciousness ceases to be then corona name and form ceases to be.


text:
What did the Buddha teach regarding remorse?
This is a question of practical interest. My personal practice is generally to feel guilty for bad deeds, but today I tried admitting fault and guilt without feeling guilty, and it was much less stressful. I do not know which is correct. Is there any textual evidence on whether the Buddha suggested feeling remorse or not?

Sutta 42.8 from the Samyutta Nikaya, Sankha Sutta, discusses remorse, but the following two translations seem to contradict each other, in which one mentions remorse is not useful, whereas the other mentions that remorse is part of reflecting on having done something not good. Is one of these translations more historically accurate than the other?

The Access To Insight translation reads:

'The Blessed One
in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and
says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have
killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was
not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed
of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right
then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life.

The Sutta Central translation reads:

But consider when a Realized One arises in the world… In many ways he
criticizes and denounces killing living creatures… And there’s a
disciple who is devoted to that teacher. Then they reflect: ‘In many
ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces killing living creatures,
saying: “Stop killing living creatures!” But I have killed living
creatures to a certain extent. That’s not right, it’s not good, and I
feel remorseful because of it. But I can’t undo what I have done.’
Reflecting like this, they give up killing living creatures, and in the
future they don’t kill living creatures.

(I’ve been trying to translate the Pali but I've only gotten so far as that one should "renounce" the evil deed.)

This question is difficult for me. However, before exploring it, it must be highlighted the suttas do not praise remorse (vippaṭisārī), as shown in AN 5.142, below:

One person neither transgresses nor regrets (vippaṭisārī). And they do understand
where those arisen bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything
left over.
AN 5.142

As for the contradictions in the following translations of SN 42.8, they might be related to the optative 'assaṁ':

Ahañceva (I/aham + and/ce + thus/va/eva) kho (indeed) pana (now) tappaccayā (because of it) vippaṭisārī (remorse) assaṁ (optative of atthi; exists)
But if I become remorseful for that reason (Thanissaro)
I feel remorseful because of it (Sujato)

In AN 10.10, Sujato translates a verse with assaṁ as follows:

‘How can I become faithful and ethical?’
‘kintāhaṁ saddho ca assaṁ sīlavā cā’ti.

Therefore, when it comes to what an optative is, I get brain fog with grammatical theory. The moderators here are very good at grammar. A website says:

Indicative: used to express statements, proclamations, opinions.

Optative: used to express the hypothetical, and also wishes or hopes

Imperative: used to express commands and invitations

The optative (sometimes called the seventh tense) is used for any potential or hypothetical expression. This mood can be translated into English using auxiliary verbs such as: “may,” “might,” “should” or “would”. It can be used in sentences expression a condition, 'If... Then...', and as such, it is usually preceded by ce, sace, yadi (all meaning “if”).
Pali Studies Blog Spot

My impression is the Thanissaro translation of Sankha Sutta is accurate because it appears an optative (preceded by ce) is used to express a hypothetical. This also appears to occur in Sujato's translation of AN 10.10. This also concurs with AN 5.142, where the Buddha discourages remorse. However, Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation: "But though I feel regret over this" appears to concur with Sujato. Yet, again, these appear contrary to AN 10.10 and also MN 61, which does not mention/encourage remorse/regret in relation to transgressions.

This is a really insightful answer and can be improved by focusing the content on the parts that directly answer the OP’s question: that the ambiguity between the translations may be satisfyingly explained by understanding how the optative has been variously translated.

Thank you Julius. I have no fluency in Pali or grammar. I just plod along examining small relevant passages when required. I found this website very useful, which was from where I learned 'assam' was an optative. https://www.digitalpalireader.online/_dprhtml/index.html

I agree that the answer was very insightful, and it along with all the other answers satisfied my curiosity about the issue. Some of the things I learned: 1. what the Buddha's standard view on remorse is. 2. Remorse vs shame-and-fear of wrongdoing definitions 3. What an optative may be and why it may have led to divergent translations 4. That my more updated personal practice is probably closer to the right one 5. A few other things that escape my short term memory at the moment

Piya Tan translated the same as:

Then, headman, a disciple has full confidence in that teacher. He
reflects thus:  ‘In many ways the Blessed One censures and blames the
destruction of life, and he says:  ‘Abstain from the destruction of
life!’  Now I have destroyed life to such an extent. That is not
proper; that is not good.  But though I feel regret over this, that
bad deed of mine cannot be undone.’  Having reflected thus, he
abandons the destruction of life  and abstains from the destruction of
life thenceforth.
SN 42.8

I feel the above is a better translation. It shows the futility of regret/ remorse.
Remorse or regret is considered unwholesome and should not be allowed to grow according to AN 5.142.

AN11.1 (here and here) are translated as saying that the purpose and benefits of skilful ethics is "no remorse".
Elsewhere are suttas saying that shame is important -- not to feel ashamed, I think, but to be capable of feeling shame -- so you'd stop before doing wrong, to avoid the resulting (feeling of) shame.
I read both the suttas you quoted as saying the same thing -- if I kill and feel remorse, that feeling of remorse doesn't undo the killing. Or perhaps in conventional terms, "an apology only goes so far". What's important is to (also or as a consequence) stop any further/future killing.
Avoiding it in future is incidentally what I'd call a "sincere" apology i.e. learning from the incident -- the misdeed and its consequences and ideally its causes -- and resolving not to repeat it.

Hi. It appears shame (hiri) is not the same as remorse (vippaṭisāra). I have not investigated the following theory but I recall reading the theory hiri (shame) operates to prevent transgression; while remorse is the unenlightened reaction to transgressions.

Guilt/remorse is a mindstate that clings to a self, i.e "I" (you) that then clings to the past and past actions and past or future effects.
It is a mindstate bound by root poisons.
Non-virtuous.
The correct mindtate would be resolve to avoid such actions now and in the future.

The Four Powers
Within this practice, there are four approaches to
purification. Each one was generated by the particular circumstances
of four of the Buddha’s disciples. They are called the Power of
Support, the Power of Remorse, the Power of the Antidote and the Power
of Resolve.

Regret and Remorse
(...) Remorse cuts deeper. It arises when feel badly about behavior
that was intended to cause harm. Between these two usages, we can
assume that Angulimala suffered remorse. But how can such an intense,
powerful experience of negativity be transformed?
(...) Let’s try to distinguish between remorse and guilt, at least as
I am using them here. Angulimala’s situation was pretty extreme, so
perhaps you can think of something from your own life. Is there some
incident that continues to haunt you? Anything that involves killing,
maybe of animals, or of stealing or of lying, slander, malicious
gossip or sexual misconduct that caused you or others mental or
physical suffering? Consider what you usually do with this, how you
normally relate to this action. One common strategy is to avoid it.
The event comes to mind, but the mind backs away. You know the way
your hand leaps in front of your face to protect it from dirt kicked
up by a passing truck? It’s a kind of flinching motion. That’s often
the mind’s response to guilt. The old image, or mental movie of our
action is too disturbing to watch, but we feel the discomfort
nonetheless. Our mind becomes gripped by the feeling, but with no
release.
Another response to an action that disturbs our equanimity is to
replay it over and over again. In the first case, we cannot look at
it. Here, we cannot stop looking at it. Negative emotional
associations may erupt repeatedly, but we still end up watching
another movie in which we are the main character. We watch ourselves
over and over. Yet there is no exit from this loop, and nagging
self-recrimination persists.
So how can we use remorse to alleviate the suffering rather than allow
it to keep us stuck in guilt? We do this through the wisdom of
awareness. We need to separate guilt from remorse. Guilt keeps the
focus on our personal emotional response. This can happen so
thoroughly, that the emotion takes on a life of its own. This leaves
no room for a corrective impulse. Try looking directly at a
troublesome activity without judgment. Don’t try to understand, judge,
or change it. Just review it. With the calm abiding mind of shamata,
we watch the activity as if standing on the reviewing platform of a
parade; or as if standing on the bank of a river without being carried
away by the current. The story may have a lot of emotional force, but
we apply the same meditation that we use for awareness with object.
And remember, all this time Vajrasattva sits just above our head,
ready to support our every effort. He too is witnessing, but not
judging. His kindness and compassion does not differentiate between
“victim” and “perpetrator.” Seeing our innate purity, he aspires for
us to see our innate purity and his wish for all beings to attain
enlightenment radiates without discrimination.
Using this excellent support, try to stay with witnessing. Shamata
should make it easier to recognize when our minds step away from
witnessing and get caught by the story, or slips into aversion and
tries to flinch away from just watching. See if you can create some
space between the action and the emotional drama that has fueled the
story. See if you can break the pattern of empowering the action with
emotional energy. In this way remorse creates the context out of which
comes the recognition of what we have done and what we can do about
it. Remorse that acknowledges our negative behavior now becomes our
ally; and Vajrasattva becomes the vehicle by which we reorient our
behavior from non-virtuous to virtuous action. Remorse—not the
emotional grip of shame and guilt—allows for purification; and
therefore allows us to move forward. (...)

https://learning.tergar.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Four-Powers-copy.pdf


text:
Why does the mind (my mind) continue to deviate to past experiences at any point for no reason
For quite some time now, no matter what innocuous thing I do my mind can randomly wonder to some past experience for no reason at all other than a common bond between the memory and present action or experience.
A few examples:

I am making a cup of tea and my mind wanders to a conversation I had 15 years ago with a person about brewing a cup of tea.
I make some food and my mind wanders to a person I once cooked food with a decade ago.
I am walking and see leaves on the ground and my mind wanders to a memory of my youth 3 decades ago when I played with leaves.

My main practice is a form of mindfulness and observation of any klesha and applying an antidote on its arrival. When these thoughts arise I stop them instantly. The issue is that they can happen randomly at at any time, and that I do not know their cause or how to stop them from arising.
Why is this? Is this part of the root poison of desire, to desire to be "I/me" and the memories of the past reinforcing this, clinging? Is it a by product of the mind-stream (past/present/future) that cannot be avoided? Is this something that all beings suffer from up to or even after arhantship?
Of course I can bring up a memory for context on command. My mind was not always so calm. It was once unruly and I was able to be completely controlled by kleshas. In the above situations, the memories are not being commanded as well as I am not being controlled by kleshas.
I am not asking for personal advice on how to deal with it, because in a more conventional sense it is just a simple distraction that I as a practitioner apply an antidote and alleviate. Is this wandering usual, what is its cause, and can it be completely eradicated?
My mind is not defiled by any sort of strong klesha. These do not seem like general defilements. They are short lived, 2 seconds and I am back to sati of the present moment, but this has been going on for so long now. I feel either this is something I would need to do something specific to eradicate (I do not know what) or it is something that others also experience frequently and is just part of the samsaric experience. Something not to be concerned about.

This answer by Suminda is a good answer for this question.
The phenomena you described is basically caused by papanca, also known as reification, objectification-classification or concept proliferation.
You can search for more questions on papanca for further information.
I quote part of that answer below:

Vitakka/Vicara are the factors which gives rise to thoughts. When
Vitakka/Vicara subsides the through ability is lost. Papanca is the
stream of thoughts in succession resulting from an initial thought.
.....
Vitakka/Vicara is present in all Papanca. Papanca is the snowballing
of thoughts starting from initial thought. In all proliferated thought
Vitakka/Vicara is present.
If the train of thoughts are represented like this:

initial thought - unprompted by other thoughts - Vitakka/Vicara only - e.g. a smell
next thought - as reaction to thought 1 - Vitakka/Vicara (without Vitakka/Vicara no thoughts will arise) and Papanca - e.g. some one who
wore the perfume - this is a related thought
next thought - as reaction to thought 2 - Vitakka/Vicara and Papanca - e.g. party that person was in - fills in details
next thought - as reaction to thought 3 - Vitakka/Vicara and Papanca - e.g. something that happened in the party - fills in details
next thought - as reaction to thought 4 - Vitakka/Vicara and Papanca - e.g. something about another person involved with the
incident - relate thought
next thought - as reaction to thought 5 - Vitakka/Vicara and Papanca - e.g. if this has happened like this it would have been
better - imagination about the past
next thought - as reaction to thought 6 - Vitakka/Vicara and Papanca - e.g. if I was in a similar situation I would do this -
imagination about the future

So this is essentially explaining it is actually a usual experience for all. Essentially it is a wandering of the mind that is not absorbed in jhana

@Remyla That's right. Papanca is kind of the story your mind concocts, a wandering.

AN 10.58 says all dhammas converge on feelings (vedana).
MN 44 & SN 41.6 say feelings (vedana) are the mind-conditioner (citta-sankhara).
Note: please ignore the faulty translations in the above sutta links.
Vedana/feeling is an initial sensory impact; similar to being punched & stabbed. Feeling impinges upon the sense organs; similar to a punch causing a bruise. This is why there is memory. Tied up with these feelings are perceptions and then also thought-based narratives.
Thus the second condition of dependent origination is three sankhara:

Citta-sankhara (feeling & perception)

Vaci-sankhara (initial & sustained thought)

Kaya-sankhara (in & out breathing)

When there remains ignorance, these past sensory impacts imprinted into the sense organs will reemerge (as the three sankhara) as they release pressure or will otherwise reemerge when similar sensory impressions occur.
MN 118 refers to the calming of kaya-sankhara (breathing) & citta-sankhara (feelings). If past impactful pleasant & unpleasant feelings have not been calmed & replaced by calm feelings (samatha), they will continue to reemerge.

What does this mean: "If past impactful pleasant & unpleasant feelings have not been calmed & replaced by calm feelings", as if this unwelcomed remembrance of the past IS able to be eradicated? Because the above paragraph "When there remains ignorance..." would of course lead me to think that only an arhant (who is free from ignorance) is free from these past memories unwillingly arising.

Yes,  an arhant (who is free from ignorance) is free from these past memories unwillingly arising. However, once-returners & non-returners have also greatly reduced unwillingly arisings. Even stream-enterers per SN 13.1.

I believe our mind has a default action or mode i.e. it drifts. And this is something that it does all the time.
It drifts by leaning towards that which is agreeable. Or it drifts from that which is disagreeable. When there is neither an agreeable or disagreeable moment, contact or experience, it drifts looking for something new.

So I am asking Why is this?

Yes, I believe the root poison is desire which prevents the mind from seeing things as they truly are. It nudges the mind to ignore the reality (ignorance/delusion) but encourages the mind to selectively pick on what is agreeable and/or to shun from that which is disagreeable.
I find this drifting of our mind gets worse as we grew older. I observed this in my late mother in her last two years. We would be sitting together at a table chit-chatting and then the next moment her gaze drifts to someone or something and the conversation just end abruptly. This wandering mind is especially fatal as we grew older. A senior person not watching their step could end in a fall just when they can ill afford to do so. My late mother suffered a few falls (likely compounded by her being easily distracted) resulting in her immobility towards the end.
Things to share:

Thanissaro Bhikkhu mentioned in his talks on trying to see what is the allure that caused this wandering. Seeing the allure that our mind hides behind us causes the attraction to evaporate. This helps to cool the mind and anchor it.

Working on samadhi or single-pointedness in our meditation. I find if the mind enjoys staying with the meditation object, it reduces the habitual tendency to wander.

Seeing impermanence, non-self and sorrow in the contact/object/experience causing the mind to wander helps to generate a sense of weariness and dispassion. Again, this helps to anchor the mind.

An approach mentioned in the Ignorance Avijjā Sutta (SN 35:80) is one that I am personally fond of as it directly address the root cause.

I think the fact that we are aware of this incessant wandering is a sign of progress. The fact that the wandering is short-lived is even better. But I don’t agree that it should be treated as normal and ignored especially if we are seeking to progress in our spiritual development. I believe it is wonderful that we have a chance to be aware of this issue and to overcome it in this life through the Dharma.
With Metta.

Obviously I am not talking about formal meditation. Restless mind, and wandering mind in meditation is obviously a massive obstacle, this is the mind in every day life doing mundane things. From my own perspective I have been practising a form of satiphatanna (tibetan lojong) for nearly 2 decades now, to the point I am in the phase of what I know as "application of non-application" essentially meaning the practice is second nature to me, I do not need to apply any effort, so i am continuously observing my mental functions as a natural mental function.  I can in retrospective...

Still remember what the mind was like when It was unruly and full of kleshas attempting to take control every moment of the day. Now it has come to a point where my mind is serene, I am near immune to kleshas taking hold, (though infrequently they attempt to arise) but this one thing, remembering the past experiences that arises randomly doing mundane things is something I have no control over and quite frankly it is annoying. Again I control it, i just recognize it as clinging so the thought process never leads me to desire or whatever, but it is very annoying and I would like to contain it.

From what I have read and I believe you are equally confident that much progress had been achieved. Not much else to add....just some thoughts. Sometimes, patience is being kind. The mundane can be interesting. Letting go can be controlling.

This is evidence that your practice is reaping results. When one is able to see one’s own thoughts come and go, it is a good sign. Keep it up.

Not an answer but useful nonetheless...
from Mahavedalla Sutta:

Friend, these five mental faculties with varing provinces and pastures
not partaking each others province and pasture, such as the faculties
of the eye, ear, nose, tongue and body, where are they restored and
who partakes the pasture commonly?
Friend, these five mental faculties with varing provinces and pastures
not partaking each others province and pasture such as the faculties
of the eye, ear, nose, tongue and body. They are restored in the mind
and it partakes the pasture commonly.


text:
Drunk in Dream without any alcohol in the past month
I had this dream in an afternoon 3-hr long nap today where I was so drunk that I could not keep track of the present. I remember, at one moment I was conscious that I feel drunk and then the next moment I knew of, much time had already passed from that previous moment of awareness. This all was in the dream itself. There were also accompanying signs like heart palpitations which are actually true for me in real life too. The surprising thing is that I did not drink in real life at all in the past few weeks, and neither did I drink within the dream.
I was just curious if there is any insight in Buddhism on this - does it hint at any blockages, or hindrances that I may have in "real life"? Thanks for any insights.

This is partly a homeopathic symptom of nat mur from what I remember from someone years ago. You should probably seriously think over addictions of alcohol.

Dreams can arise due to many factors like cravings , conditionings , karma etc. Dreams of alcohol are coming due to cravings.
Dreams are impermanent. Dreams arise , change and vanish. Therefore it is not appropriate to call the dreams as me , mine or myself.
If you have quit drinking then it is good step and there is nothing to worry about.

I actually have never been addicted to alcohol... I have barely drunk, can barely drink a beer without pushing myself. I understand that it's not me and mine... The real reason I asked this question was the mind state associated in the dream, not the content itself. I actually was mentally drunk, feeling the effects probably clearer than in real life. This is what surprises me

@Kobamschitzo Are you deeply associated with anyone who drinks or was addicted to alcohol ?

No, I am from an Easter conservative family. None of my family or friends drink alcohol except me, but I too barely drink.. like thrice a year or so.

Dreams are just mental formations arising and ceasing in succession, a way to let the mind relax and fall into the many varied and myriad of fabrications it can concoct. Not to be taken for anything other than that.
Imagine it as a dice roll RPG, like dungeons and dragons or something. This roll you are wearing stockings (6) while you are a tyrannosaurus rex (9) in barbados (4)......there is your dream.

Drunkenness is a state of mind to which we can become attached.

SN8.12:2.1: “We used to wander, drunk on poetry,
SN8.12:2.2: village to village, town to town.
SN8.12:2.3: Then we saw the Buddha,
SN8.12:2.4: and faith arose in us.

And about attachment, the Buddha also advised:

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

A three hour afternoon nap is unusually long. Sometimes an unusually heavy meal can stupefy us into a drunken slumber. Look beyond the dream.

AN5.210:1.1: “Mendicants, there are these five drawbacks of falling asleep unmindful and unaware.

Yeah I think you basically answeed it.. It was this slumber hours wondering about,  because I ate earlier.  its amazing the slumber was quite intense within my dream and it felt quite real, more real I would say than real life drunk.

Our minds work by association. You see something, its characteristics remind you of something you have experienced before, and you assume it's related.
In this case, your dream experience contained some signs (nimitta) like the loss of balance, blured vision, a lapse of awareness and so on, and in your memory these signs are associated with the state of being drunk, so that's what your mind assumed. If you had memory of an earthquake, your mind could have associated these signs with that memory and then you would see a little earthquake story. This is just how it works.
Another question, why those particular signs were produced, and why that association came up. Your specific reference to the lapse of awareness makes me think you must have spent some time recently paying attention to your awareness, and it slipped into your dreaming mind. So it could be a good sign that you are taking it seriously.
Another component of the association mechanism is emotion. Can you remember what emotion you experienced in the dream when you were drunk, and when you noticed that time lapse? That's the most interesting part of the puzzle.


text:
About Vasubandhu and Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya (-saptati)
The dialectics between Buddhism and the philosophy of Sāṅkhya are profoundly recorded especially in Chinese and Tibetan Vāda Grantha-s — this is to the point that most major Sāṅkhya texts extant today are reconstructed from their Chinese and Tibetan translations. Other Buddhist texts are also vast sources about the school of thought and its preceptors; the information regarding the early preceptors on the other hand is scarce in Sāṅkhya texts themselves (the outlier being Yuktidīpikā) or in other Hindu works.
One example of this is K'uei Chi's commentary on Vasubandhu's Vijnaptimātratasiddhi where he elucidates about Kapilā, his school of Sāṅkhya, and his successors. He also states about debates between the schools and about Vasubandhu's refutation of Sāṅkhya philosophy. He records this as his master Hiuen-Tsang narrates to him. The debatable thing though is he mentions Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya on the Sāṅkhya text of Sāṅkhyakārikā as a work of Vasubandhu. As far as I know, he is not alone here - Yuen Ts'eh in his commentary on Nyāyānusāraśāstra, Tsing Liang (Ching Kuan) in his discourse on the Avataṃsaka and Ju Li too in his commentary on Vasubandhu's Vijnaptimātratasiddhi mentions the same.
The point to note here is that though debatable, traditional Indology doesn't hold any connection between Vasubandu and Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya. J. Takakusu mentioning the same states "There is, however, no reason whatever why a Buddhist should write a commentary on the work of his opponent...", he continues to posit that the mention of Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya in the aforementioned texts is due to confusion - "...and this point too, I think, must be dismissed as a confusion arising from a resemblance of the names, Sāṅkhya saptati, and Paramārthasaptati."
Personally, I don't think these two points hold much merit — (i) We have a plethora of instances against the reasoning. Thousands of works and commentaries are written on rival texts including major works of opposing schools of thought. (ii) There is an intelligible difference between the titles even if the saptati is common. To have confusion between these by multiple people doesn't hold any practical value of reasoning. Also in my opinion the text of Sāṅkhya saptati was pretty well known in the Chinese-Buddhist realm of philosophy, evident from Yuktidīpikā's mention of multiple discussions and debates between the Buddhists and the followers of Sāṅkhya. I am curious to know anything against this.
Supplementing my limited research, I'd like to know if Vasubandhu really wrote Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya and if you know any other resources (primary sources like texts of preceptors or scholarship of modern scholars) that either sustain the link of Vasubandhu and Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya or go against it. And please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something or am in ignorance of some critical information here.

I would really appreciate any lead whatsoever.

Have you  considered asking the question here: https://www.dharmawheel.net/

Thanks a lot! I did asked in other forums but couldn't get any answer; I will try this too :)

@dhamma-dhatu The post finally got accepted if you're interested -https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=43427 :)

Thank you. I do not study Mahayana Buddhism therefore your question is complex for me. However, reading Wikipedia, about Samkhya, it says: "Samkhya or Sankhya is a dualistic orthodox school of Hindu philosophy. It views reality as composed of two independent principles, Puruṣa ('consciousness' or spirit) and Prakṛti (nature or matter, including the human mind and emotions). Puruṣa is the witness-consciousness. It is absolute, independent, free, beyond perception, above any experience by mind or senses, and impossible to describe in words".

It appears this Samkhya view would be untenable in any type of Buddhism. The Buddha taught in many places consciousness is dependently originated (MN 38); that there can be no arising of consciousness without sense organs (MN 38; MN 18; MN 148); without mind-body (SN 12.67; SN 22.82); without the other four aggregates of body, feeling, perception & thought (SN 22.53); in particularly, consciousness, perception & feeling are conjoined & cannot arise without each other (MN 43).

Yes, I'm aware of that. As I wrote in my dharmawheel post, there's a minor view among scholars that Buddha in Dīgha and Poṭṭhapādasutta himself refers to and refutes Sāṅkhya doctrine. Pārāsariya and Vṛddhaparāśara are also inferred as Sāṅkhya Śāstrīn. Though in my personal view, these don't reflect Īśvara Kṛṣṇa's Sāṅkhya, as Vijñānabhikṣu states it as "earlier deviated" Sāṅkhya. Nonetheless, even in the context of Īśvara Kṛṣṇa's Sāṅkhya, the dialectics is scathing. Kamala Śila's quote is the epitome of it. However, this doesn't affect the connection of Vasubandhu and Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya. (1)

Even if the views don't coincide at all, and even if the relationship between two thoughts is bitter, that doesn't affect the scholarly output in the form of a commentary. Commentary on other schools doesn't necessarily mean an attempt to agree or build a bridge between two thoughts. As Vijñānabhikṣu's gloss on Nāgārjuna's works showcases, it may be an attempt to understand the school of thought or to show how the thought is different from one's school. It may be an attempt to appreciate the scholarly nature of work as in the example of Appayyadīkṣita commentary on Vedāntadeśika's work. (2)

As I said in the post, I'm open to the idea that Vasubandhu didn't write Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya; but then I'm curious as to how the tradition of this variant authorship arose. There are multiple scholars, particularly in the Tang dynasty which attributes the same. J. Takakusu in an attempt to fill the gap in any nuanced argument against the authorship states that this emanated probably from Hiuen-Tsang, but then how did Hiuen-Tsang in the first place arrive at the said authorship? (3)

Lastly, do you study Theravada? Do you know of any work that discusses Vasubandhu, his doctrine, and specifically his works? That would be interesting to read! (4)

I cannot assist however the Sutta Central forum mentions Vasubandhu 112 times in discussions https://discourse.suttacentral.net/search?q=Vasubandhu including on this topic where Bhikkhu Sujato discusses some teachings https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-buddha-affirms-the-upani-adic-atman/17276/15

I read the Sāṅkhyakārikā with my teacher when I studied Sanskrit. Fascinating text.
The only text called Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya or Sāṃkhyakārikābhāṣya that I can see is attributed to Gauḍapada (~6th century), e.g.

https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-OR-00326/1
https://www.academia.edu/42004315/On_the_S%C4%81%E1%B9%83khyak%C4%81rik%C4%81_and_its_Commentarial_Tradition_the_Suvar%E1%B9%87asaptati_S%C4%81%E1%B9%83khyav%E1%B9%9Btti_and_Gau%E1%B8%8Dap%C4%81dabh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ya

I can see no reason to disagree with Takakusu's conclusions. This story has clearly become garbled in Chinese.
Chuck Muller notes "Vasubandhu devotes considerable attention to Sāṃkhyans already in his Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya".
I think that the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya is often just referred to as "the bhāṣya" which might account for the confusion.

Thank you for your response but Sāṃkhyakārikābhāṣya of Gauḍapada and the one in question are two different text. Commentaries on Sāṃkhyakārikā are mostly not titled, thus the generic name.

While I acknowledge that there are instances when the facts and stories are garbled in Chinese editions and so on, I don't have any basis to do so here. The texts which Takakusu mentions notes the commentary specifically in the context on Sāṃkhya and the kārikā, so not a large scope for Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya either. The dialectics themselves lends support to the idea that Vasubandhu may have wrote such a text. Do read my post on Sutra Central which I have linked afore in comments.

Well, I searched all the Sanskrit text repositories and your text doesn't exist in Sanskrit. Or, it it does, no one has published it or mentioned it in a publication. Nor did any secondary literature come up when I searched more generally.
I have looked at Sutta Central (where I am also active from time to time) and I don't see any reference to such commentary. Yes, Vasubandhu is mentioned, but no one refers to a Sāṃkhyakārikā commentary attributed to him (at least in my searches).

It's the very existence of the said work, it's mentioned by preceptors and in contemporary scholarship, that made Takakusu dedicate 4 pages to it. The general opinion holds the commentary in Paramārtha's Chinese version to be the one in question. Chakravarti (1951) dedicates a portion to the strange mention (quoting Takakusu himself). Also, see Mainkar (1972); he quotes a handful of 'Sāṃkhyakārikābhāṣya(s)'. I was reading the former and this strangely attracted my curiosity. I have sadly not bookmarked some more scholarships that I came across, but I would search for those again if you'd like.


text:
If the 6 realms are states of the mind, are Buddhas / Siddhas miracles real?
Hello,
I understand that the six realms can be interpreted as states of the mind. But at the same time I believe in Yidam yoga, not only as symbolic but as a real emanation too - I have devotion.
If the six realms are only symbolic then Buddhas / Siddhas cannot surpass the three times and cannot preform any miracles also; as I think they are both superstitions, so may be rebirth.
At the same time nirvana may not be reachable by mantras as only a 8th level Bodhisattva can compose a mantra; and a lower level Bodhisattva in the 1st step is able see 100 lives before and after.
I do believe in miracles, karma, nirvana, rebirth and "spirits" because of my experiences in life. I might be wrong, but shouldn't this make sense ? I mean Buddhism is very logical...
What is considered a superstition from a Buddhist point of view ?
Thank you !

The ego can very easily be considered a superstition. Buddha’s teachings show us that the “self”, just like everything else, isn’t permanent.
If there are some beliefs you think are just supernatural, you need to remember that you’re not yet completely free from delusion. I’m not either, but I’ve heard that the best way to handle such beliefs is to figure out whether the Buddha’s teachings would still work and make sense.
Quote from Thaganapa, one of the 84 Mahasiddhas:

Inject water into the ear
To release water in the ear;
Contemplate phenomena as a lie
And you see the truth.

Superstition runs deep. Everytime you say body is me , mine or myself, you are being superstitious. Everytime you say feeling is me , mine or myself , you are being superstitious. Everytime you say perceptions are me , mine or myself, you are being superstitious. Everytime you say choices are me , mine or myself , you are being superstitious. Everytime you say consciousness is me , mine or myself , you are being superstitious.

Buddhist practice is to strip away illusions. To ask whether some belief is real or superstition is counterproductive; we should only look to see if it can be stripped away without harm.
Imagine that every belief we have is a thin veil over your eyes. These veils protect us from seeing too much before we are ready to understand. They filter, soften, and structure the world, glossing over details and highlighting important points. When we realize we are wearing a veil we can draw it away, and the world will look the same, but different. If we can pull away all the veils, we'll see the same world, transformed. We will not know whether something we believe is or is not superstition until we pull away the relevant veils and see it clearly.
Don't look for truth; look for the veils over your eyes.  Truth isn't going anywhere.

Reality is our interpretation. What we think is reality is a reflection of our mind and energy.
So yes, the six realms are states of mind, but it is still true that depending on your state of mind you can find yourself in an entirely different world. It's just not as simple as six worlds, it's more than six. The six is just a simple picture, to make a point.
Miracles, karma, nirvana, rebirth, spirits and yidams are all real, just not how they show them in the movies. Once you learn to "see" you can "see" them with your mind.
It's only a superstition if you think they exist like the grandma in the village, in a primitive way.

My impression from studying Buddhist scriptures is doctrines of reincarnation developed more & more with the advancement of Buddhist history. In the early Pali scriptures, there appears actually no word that literally means 'rebirth' or 'past lives'. For example, there appears only one sutta that explains the meaning of the term 'pubba-nivasa', which literally means 'past-dwellings' but is often translated as 'past-lives'. This one sutta is SN 22.79, which appears to explain a 'past-dwelling' is every time in the past the mind ignorantly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as 'self'. In addition, there are many suttas that appear to use the six realms as here & now mental states, such as SN 35.135.
In summary, the question of this topic sounds based in later day Tibetan Buddhism, which, similar to later day Theravada, has very structured literal doctrines of reincarnation. However, from the earlier Pali suttas, it appears a case can be made for different (here & now) interpretations of what are called 'the six realms' and 'past lives'.
As for supernormal psychic powers, the early Pali sutta report the Buddha & some (but not all) of his enlightened disciples can these. Supernormal psychic powers have no relationship to the six realms or notions of past & future lives. In the early Pali suttas, it is reported the Buddha used supernormal psychic powers to observe the (moral) rise & fall of beings according to their kamma. The Buddha did not use supernormal psychic powers to observe past-dwellings (or what is commonly translated as past-lives). This can be read in the stock phrases describing the Three Knowledges, as found at the end of MN 4 and DN 2.

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the
recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his
manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four,
five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand,
one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of
cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion,
[recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had
such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure
and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I
re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan,
had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of
pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that
state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in
their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home
village to another village, and then from that village to yet another
village, and then from that village back to his home village. The
thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that
village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way,
talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that
village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a
way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in
such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way —
with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of
the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past
lives... in their modes and details.
"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible
here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.
With his mind thus
concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects,
pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he
directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and
re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye [supernormal psychic power],
purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and
re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior,
beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their
kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body,
speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and
undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the
break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of
deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these
beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind,
who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook
actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the
body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the
heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified and
surpassing the human — he sees beings passing away and re-appearing,
and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and
ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. Just
as if there were a tall building in the central square [of a town],
and a man with good eyesight standing on top of it were to see people
entering a house, leaving it, walking along the street, and sitting in
the central square. The thought would occur to him, 'These people are
entering a house, leaving it, walking along the streets, and sitting
in the central square.' In the same way — with his mind thus
concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects,
pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk
directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and
re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye,
purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and
re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior,
beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their
kamma...

To conclude this question, which is about 'superstition', in the early Pali suttas, there is only one Dhamma Refuge, which is defined as follows:

‘Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves.’
MN 38

The Buddhist concept of miracles is different from our stereotypical conception of miracles, i.e. some eponymous bit of God does something "impossible". It is not being miraculous in a literal sense but appears to defy laws that are natural to this world i.e. they defy what we see to be possible even with enough time and our knowledge of the world and us. Siddha lists are one way of showing or knowing of such anomalies.
Specifically for Buddhists, the main work explaining it using siddhis which is as you know, the literal translation of "miracle". The Pāli canon gives such a lot of detail regarding the more apparent miracles and lacks details about every other miracle.


text:
Meditation and Sleep schedule
Is it possible for a person to have sleeping disorders or problems with large durations of meditation? I know a few very big siddhas that have astonishing powers and they meditate up to 8 hours a day after office hours and sleep for 4 hours only.
When I tried a long duration of meditation, I found a lack of sleepiness, and my sleep schedule was a bit altered. Is there any possibility of a large duration of deviation through meditation? What is the best way to manage that?

@DhammaDhatu Unfortunately, I met them when I was very young, they don't exist now. :)

Oh yeah.  That's 100% true.  On our sesshins, we often sit 10-12 hours a day.  After the second or third day, you're so hopped up on meditative energy, you only need a couple of hours of sleep.  By the fourth day, most people don't even bother going to bed.  This won't happen the first 5-10 years of your practice.  During that time, you'll probably need more sleep just to recover.  But after?  Better bring a book or some knitting!
This will abate once you cut back on the intensity of your practice.

Oh bless this site.  I'm done posting here.  I'm an ordained Rinzai priest who has been sitting 3 hours a day for 17 years and goes on 5 week long sesshins every year.  If my answers are worth a blind downvote, I don't know what to tell you.

Your answer received at least one downvote and one upvote. Users are free to vote on the questions and answers to decide how good it is.

Probably the description could have been better. I guess users here prefer more structured answers here. Like the sleep issues from the first couple of hours to a few years, how they change or how they transform, etc.

Once I had this om meditation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranava_yoga) in my initial stage, whenever I'd come out of my meditation, I'd feel a change that I was not bothered by anything in the world anymore, a feeling of bliss of self-fulfillment, but for some reason one day I injured myself, a very sharp current like feeling at my spine with a sudden rise of anxiety and scare (I wasn't sure what this was triggering this feeling, probably the base of the spine?) and then clairvoyant vision and from that day I paused meditation to recover. I almost recovered from that fright and anxiety.

Oh come on, ruben.  Look, I've been posting on here since this site was three weeks old.  I've had two accounts with 10,000+ rep.  I've seen at least a dozen superlatively expert users chased out of here by the constant pettiness usually originating from one account, but often coming from all over.  Why?  Why does this site continue to exist?  The content is awful anymore and if anything the community has gotten even more toxic.  It's time to pull the plug.

@ruben2020 As you know I agree with 000's comment, I don't see the point in enabling this (low-quality) user-experience.

@000 If you could be a moderator of this site, might you be willing? Could you (help to) do it better, differently, make it better?

By the way I've long since tolerated any single downvote. That may be a prerequisite to posting here!

@ChrisW I've tolerated single downvotes too. The problem is not a single downvote but that there are not many total votes to provide a balanced view.

@ruben2020 My point was that any single downvote is not a "community" opinion but "originating from one account" (and irrelevant unless it's from the person who asked the question i.e. for whom the question was being answered).

The purpose of Buddhist meditation is the development of samatha (tranquility) & vipassana (non-attaching liberating insight). This non-attachment & tranquility, if developed, is a very natural state of mind because the ordinary will/volition of the mind has been surrendered. Therefore, when it is time to sleep, the mind knows when it is time to sleep. If the mind is approaching or has developed jhana, the need to sleep is less. However, because this development is so non-volitional, if there is a biological need to sleep, jhana won't be reached because it is time to sleep. In summary, I very much doubt sleep disorders can occur due to long period meditation if the meditation is developed according to the Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path is The Middle-Way. The Middle-Way is the path between indulgence in sensuality & engaging in self-torment/punishment.
It sounds like a rare situation if a person is working 8 hours in the office and also practicing 8 hours of meditation after work. However, if their samatha (tranquility) meditation is well-developed, I imagine they can live with 4 hours sleep per day. The scriptures say the Buddha slept 4 hours per night; however, when the Buddha was older, he also had a nap in the middle of the day; particularly during the hot season.
When I lived a monastery in Thailand for an extended period of time, generally, I/we slept six hours per night, even though I/we practised meditation for at least 8 hours per day (during retreats 10 hours per day). I do not recall anyone giving much thought to how long they slept. We finished meditation at 9pm, often I meditated until 10pm. The bell woke the monastery up at 4am. There was a time I was meditating past 10pm however I recall i would have two or so hours nap in the middle of the day. At least in my experience, when there is the need for sleep, there will be sleep, when one's practice is based in giving up craving and giving up ego. If you strive to deliberately have little sleep, even when the body & mind are tired, this is craving; this is ego; this is self-mortification. Its not the Middle-Way.

Thank you for the answer, I understand how balancing jhana and sleep is necessary.