text:
Buddho : The one who knows which is above the mind? A Dhammatalk by Ajahn Chah
In this Dhamma Talk, Venerable Ajahn Chan expound about Buddho the one who knows which is above the mind as quoted below, what is it? is it just part of the mind?
I'm looking for further reference on this if possible from the Pali canon...
Many Thanks

...
  For us it's the same. Only this mind is important. That's why they say to train the mind. Now if the mind is the mind, what are we going to train it with? By having continuous sati and sampajañña we will be able to know the mind. This one who knows is a step beyond the mind, it is that which knows the state of the mind. The mind is the mind. That which knows the mind as simply mind is the one who knows. It is above the mind. The one who knows is above the mind, and that is how it is able to look after the mind, to teach the mind to know what is right and what is wrong. In the end everything comes back to this proliferating mind. If the mind is caught up in its proliferations there is no awareness and the practice is fruitless.

The key idea here is not whether there is "someone" who is above the mind. The key point is that it is possible to go beyond mind or above mind.
We are so caught up in the experience created by the mind that we are completely overwhelmed by it. We are completely absorbed in the bubble of experience it creates.
Here, "mind" is the self-constructing, self-perpetuating principle of endless proliferation of "this vs that" and the entire universe of subjective experience that emerges from iterative application of this principle.
But it is possible to cut through the bubble - through the mutually supporting combination of detachment and insight. Being outside the mind means we are not taking its drama seriously anymore. We are dispassionate, disenchanted, disillusioned, grown cold - to all its passions and games. When we see through its tricks - we can watch them from the outside of the illusion.
Watching from the outside of the illusion is "that which is above the mind".

The text provided gives the impression Ajahn Chah is saying there is a "knower" outside of the "five aggregates". If this is so, this appears certainly to be a wrong view (but something common in the village jungle dharma of North East Thailand).
I think the language of Ajahn Chah is confusing when he emphasises the conventional literal meaning of 'Buddho' meaning "the one who knows". In reality, Buddho is not a person. Instead, Buddho is "the mind that knows". Therefore, Buddho is not separate from the mind. As Ajahn Chah says:

There is the "average mind" that is untrained & undeveloped; which reacts emotionally with annoyance to sounds.
There is the "refined mind" that knows in accordance with the truth;  ñānadassana; "the power of the refined mind, so that it knows the sound as simply sound"; "the mind lets go".

Ajahn Chah is referring to "untrained average mind" versus "trained refined mind". There are too many suttas that say "the mind" ("citta") is enlightened, such as:

Visaṅkhāragataṃ cittaṃ, taṇhānaṃ khayamajjhagā
The mind has reached the Unconditioned; attained the destruction of craving.
Dhammapada 154

Nāhaṃ, bhikkhave, aññaṃ ekadhammampi samanupassāmi yaṃ evaṃ bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ sukhādhivahaṃ hoti yathayidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. Cittaṃ,
   bhikkhave, bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ sukhādhivahaṃ hotī
I don’t envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, brings about such happiness as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, brings about happiness.
AN 1.30

Also, there are many suttas that say the Buddha is not a "person", such as SN 22.85.

Also, the phrase: "beyond the mind" is confusing. I cannot recall such a phrase existing in the Pali suttas. In the Pali suttas, the common phrase for "liberation" is "beyond the world" ("lokuttara").
While Nibbana as an element is "beyond the mind", Nibbana can only be known by the mind. Thus Nibbana is called a sense object (ayatana - Ud 8.1).
There is no "one" or "person" that is beyond the mind. As I already posted, what becomes liberated is the mind.
For example, what "knows" is the mind. To paraphrase Ajahn Chah:

This mind that knows is a step beyond the mind.It is that which knows
  the state of the mind and is not attached to the state of mind.

Thus Ajahn Chah obviously would have wrong view if he actually said "the one that knows" is not the mind, as follows:

The mind is the mind. That which knows the mind as simply mind is the one who knows.

if Ajahn Chah believed in a self or a knower outside of the five aggregates, this would be a wrong view. The Buddha never taught about a "knower" outside of the five aggregates. For example, the Buddha taught:

“Wisdom and consciousness— “Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṃ—
these things are mixed, not separate. ime dhammā saṃsaṭṭhā, no
  visaṃsaṭṭhā.
And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the
  difference between them. Na ca labbhā imesaṃ dhammānaṃ vinibbhujitvā
  vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṃ paññāpetuṃ.
For you understand what you cognize, and you cognize what you
  understand. Yaṃ hāvuso, pajānāti taṃ vijānāti, yaṃ vijānāti taṃ
  pajānāti.
That’s why these things are mixed, not separate. Tasmā ime dhammā
  saṃsaṭṭhā, no visaṃsaṭṭhā.
And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the
  difference between them. Na ca labbhā imesaṃ dhammānaṃ vinibbhujitvā
  vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṃ paññāpetun”ti.

Wisdom & consciousness are inseparable. If the Buddha was to be defined in terms of aggregates (even though the suttas discourage this), the Buddha would be defined as "wisdom consciousness" or "wisdom mind/citta" or "Dhamma/Truth-knower", as follows:

I am now old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, and come to
  the last stage: my years have turned eighty... Sariputta, even if you
  have to carry me about on a bed, still there will be no change in the
  lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom.
MN 12

Otherwise the Buddha is more accurately defined as the embodiment of Dhamma itself, i.e., the Buddha is defined as "not-self" ("anatta") & "emptiness" ("sunnata"), as follows:

Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees
  Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma.
Vakkali Sutta

However, in conclusion, the Buddha is not a "One" or "Self" or "Knower" outside of the five aggregates. There can be no "knower" outside of the mind. What knows is the mind.

I'm going to find this hard to answer with a reference.
At the start of the talk he introduces the phrase, "This one who knows" -- which I automatically think of as a mistake, it seems me like a kind of identity view.
People are used to thinking that "if there's an action there's an agent" -- for example that "if there's a thought then there's a thinker".
I think that happened in Western phiosophy as cogito argo sum -- "I think therefore I am (or 'I exist')". It also happens in arguments for the existence of God -- "Because the universe exists therefore God must have created it (and therefore God exist)".
And that's not Buddhist doctrine.
In fact Buddhist doctrines warns against "I-making" -- against assuming that "I exist" or even "I don't exist" -- because all that thinking about "I" is a cause of suffering ... so better without it!
I reckon that a potential problem with "the one who knows", as a phrase or doctrine, is that you might get to thinking, "I am the one knows ... the one who knows is me!" -- which doesn't escape the problem at all!

So having introduced that phrase, he then tries to deny it -- to correct that earlier misunderstanding -- and says, "The 'one who knows' is just the mind". And I think that that is orthodox. It kind of removes the idea that "the one" is like a separate person or identity.
I guess if the normal mind is like seeing text on a page and getting caught up in the words, and thinking that the words are all there is, then "beyond the mind" might be more like being aware of the page underneath and awareness of the ink as some kind of stain -- a temporary stain.
I guess the quote which comes to mind is the Vajira Sutta (SN 5.10).

Rather say "Descartes's misguided saying", instead of Western Philosophy... I have asked a similar question previously see link below ... it does seem to me that the forest tradition from Thailand has a different view of this higher mind, I'm still investigating... Thanks for your input! What is intellect-consciousness and why is it different from intellect itself?

Yes I don't really know that "Western Philosophy" is, so I shouldn't generalise about all of it like that.

I thought it was the orthodox view that the one who knows is beyond mind. Hence the common claim that 'knowing' is fundamental. Thus also Plotinus' rejection of Mind as Ultimate. The confusion might be the phrase 'one who knows', for this seems to separate the knowing from the knower, but this can be solved by saying that knowing is a step beyond mind and not mentioning a knower separate from the knowing. The perils of language. . . . .

@PeterJ I'm not sure what might be orthodox in English -- "the one who" sounded to me easily mistaken for an identity view or a self-view, I wanted to begin by saying that the Venerable probably didn't mean that.

@ChrisW - Yes, I agree the language might suggest this, and you're right to point it out.

I think this is being overthunk [sic] lol
 'the one who knows' is the one who already woke up but remains on Earth the one who can train the mind. Why does mind training (lojong) exist? Because sometimes we have to remain on Earth to help others after initial enlightenment or a taste of enlightenment (or whenever u get first path I think). So Dharma has already ripened to fruition in such a person they will no longer benefit from whatever tradition or lineage led them there and usually seek vajrayana I believe this to be the typical Mahayana development.
We all agree HH Dalai Lama is real alive today on Earth? How can he exist at the same time as the son of his mother? The son of the mother of current Dalai Lama is a Buddho. Do we not all agree Lhamo Thondup is a Buddho living walking on Earth?

Don't confuse the word "knower", with "one who knows"...etc. Here Ajahn Chah doesn't refer to it as an individual or the petty egoistic view. It's a combination of awareness and wisdom or mindfulness if you want to call it that. Ramana Maharshi calls it the "I"; yet his "I" here doesn't mean the "EGO" which we normal think of.
Hence, please don't use the Pali Canon and say that these sages were wrong. View both as views, as ideas for your own investigations.

"If the mind is caught up in its proliferations there is no awareness and the practice is fruitless." gives already the sample on stage. It's of no use to use Buddhānussati when caught up in objectivication, papanca, good householder. This Dhamma serves just liberation from suffering with it's cleaning tools and is not at all designed to let one catch any cause of being bond.
The One who knows, who sees, is common called Arahat (~Buddha), a liberated, and Buddho serves as reflective object of concentration. It's possible to gain access to the liberal domain my the means of this reflection.

It is "'vimuttami'ti vimuttiNanam hoti" in AnattaLakkhanaSutta and AdittaPariyayaSutta.
And that state is developed by the process in MahasatipatthanaSutta "saragam va 'saragamcittam'ti pajanati".
The teacher can use any words which the listener in front of him will enlighten after listen. However, the past listener who read or listen the record of them must know their ignorant mind whether "I am not in front of the recording teacher, I don't know what was the situation appearing in his mind at that teaching moment" to avoid the misunderstood and wrong decision of the record.


text:
Is suffering always present?
I'm reading Thich Nhat Hanh's "The heart of the Buddhist teaching". When discussing the three dharma seals he talks about misconceptions of suffering. He says that teachings where suffering is considered a basic element of reality are wrong:

But sometimes only Two Dharma Seals are taught - suffering and
  nirvana. .... But suffering is not a basic element of existence. It is
  a feeling. When we insist on something that is impermanent and without
  self being permanent and having a self, we suffer. The Buddha taught
  that when suffering is present, we have to identify it and take the
  necessary steps to transform it. He did not teach that suffering is
  always present.

This makes sense to me intuitively How do the different schools, i.e. TNH as well as those opposing, justify their position? What do they use as their reference?
I have read this Q/A here however I am more interested in the references and how the different ideas are defended. The Q/A linked seems to be more opinion based, which is fine of course.

This topic might be a duplicate of, i.e. be answered by, Differences between the tilakkhana and the Dhamma seal

See also Did the Buddha really say that “life is suffering”?

That dukkha is impermanent, anicca, as well, such as all phenomenas in the world, is right, but that fact makes Dukkha all present in the conditioned sphere, perceived or not.

I think that the second noble truth says that suffering co-arises with craving -- and the third noble truth says that cessation (of craving and suffering) happens.
It's being called "pervasive", I think, comes from the tilakkhaṇa -- i.e.:

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"
sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

Note that it's "sabbe saṅkhārā" i.e. "all conditioned things" -- not "all dhammas" -- that are unsatsifactory.
Also note that "dukkhā" there is translated "unsatisfactory" not "suffering" -- i.e. the things themselves are unsatisfactory and impermanent.
Whereas "suffering" (with is another translation of "dukkhā", a context in which "dukkhā" is used) might be slightly different -- i.e. an aspect of consciousness which co-arises with craving and attachment -- i.e. craving and attaching to sankharas which are unsatisfactory and impermanent.

This makes sense to me intuitively How do the different schools, i.e. TNH as well as those opposing, justify their position? What do they use as their reference?

There's no contradiction between what TNH said versus any other school 'cuz really whenever you ask: "Is suffering always present", it's normally assumed that the sentence meant: "Is suffering always present relative to whose frame of reference"?, not some ontological inquiry into the existence of suffering in and of itself. Because of that, TNH's explanation was based on the former context and it is indeed very true, ie. for a Buddha or His arahant disciples, suffering is not present from their frame of reference. It obviously is from a run-of-the-mill's frame of reference.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why do people pretend or show off?
Why do people pretend or show off? For example:

Show off their new girl friend

Show off their new job, on Facebook and their friends circle

Show off a new dress

Show off a new iPhone
"show off" -- i.e. "boastfully display one's abilities or accomplishments

"Envy feeling" --
is this ego?

I think this question is asking about "show off" -- i.e. "boastfully display one's abilities or accomplishments".

Yes . You are correct

We are nothing in ourselves, so we pretend. My dear friend. Am I right

Puthujjanas love 2 things

sensuality
being told that they are good people, precisely for craving sensuality. If nobody tells them they are virtuous for craving sensuality, they build a little story in their head where they are good people for craving sensuality.

puthujjanas who crave sensuality will tell other puthujjanas who have good items and fame that they are good people.  Everybody wins, according to those people.
It gets even worse. The western humanists even say that envy of wealth will make people compete, for jobs for instance, and by making people compete, they will produce and buy good quality goods and services but for cheap, as long as the people who run their republic will break monopolies. Those people call this progress.
When those people want to feel compassionate, they will mix their cravings for sensuality with some social fight they found. For instance, they love to organize concerts where they will listen to songs for several hours, exactly like when they want to be purely entertained, but in order to feel righteous (and not selfish like when they feel when they get entertained), they say that they organize this entertainment not be  entertained but to ''make society aware of'', or ''in the name of'', or ''denounce'' some situation that they call ''unfair'' like some misery of some people living far away from them (like in third world countries).
This is the best life for puthujjanas: they get all the entertainment they crave and they feel like good people making a change in society, when all they do is listening to music then going back home...
Puthujjanas who break the 5 precepts do exactly the same thing.

You're very dismissive of puthujjanas. Are you quite sure there are no exceptions?

Why do people pretend? Or show off

The cause is something called "Asmi-māna", meaning "I-am-conceit". It's one of the 10 fetters (samyojanas) that bind a being to Samsara.
As seen in the illustration below, this fetter is only done away with at the attainment of Arahantship meaning that unless one is an arahant one has this fetter of conceit.

My dear friend.. I Need your experience.Beacuse I Need  your thoughts and your are intelligence . fresh answer young answer. You are buddha

You are saying right

Sexual lust. Most beings want to be loved; want to receive attention; do not want to be and feel alone. Women (plus Cultural Marxist boys/men) are known to be vulnerable to political correctness & obedient conformity. It is easy for Corporate advertising to socially engineer women because women often struggle to deal with criticism & rejection (where as men are used to being criticized, rejected & trashed).

The Blessed One said: “A woman attends inwardly to her feminine
  faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine
  poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is
  excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that,
  she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures,
  masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine
  voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that.
  Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is
  outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on
  that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into
  bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend
  her femininity.
AN 7.51

There is an inverse to what you are asking, there are some who show off their progress.
So, instead of showing off with a new phone or nice cloth they show off with their poverty, their ability to forbare, etc... in short, they show-off their progress.
Only because you tagged this in philosophy I will give you an example from Western Philosophy, but the truth is just the same.
Socrates gently mocking Antisthenes for a kind of inverse snobbery: taking too much pride in his austerity.

... when Antisthenes turned his cloak so that the tear in it became visible, Socrates said: “I see your vanity through the tear in your cloak.”

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


text:
Understanding compassion fatigue from a buddhist point of view
For the last couple of years there has been growing research on so called compassion fatigue among social workers/therapists/social workers, and their likes. In short, compassion fatigue can be described as exhaustion and/or vicarious traumatization in different forms of healthcare/emotional labor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue).
My question is - if and how - one can understand these phenomena based on buddhist dharma? As far as i understand there is no mentioning of these types of specific phenomena in the suttas.
A few personal hypotheses is that compassion fatigue is the result of one or more of these factors:

an imbalance between the five indriyas/faculties and the five pancabalani/strengths, leading to
akusala padhana/unwholesome effort.
upadana, grasping for being overtly supportive at the expense of own health, or clinging to a self-view as a tireless helper.

I realize this may seem counter to popular buddhist notions such as the brahmaviharas, for instance. I still can't help but wonder if this can explain compassion fatigue, or if there are other alternative interpretations based on a buddhist framework?
(This is a sutta reference request)

I don't know the definition of "compassion fatigue", or who defines it.
The link you posted includes,

People who experience compassion fatigue can exhibit several symptoms including hopelessness, a decrease in experiences of pleasure, constant stress and anxiety, sleeplessness or nightmares, and a pervasive negative attitude.

Why do you say, "there is no mentioning of these types of specific phenomena in the suttas"?
Perhaps there's some traditional Buddhist practice which provides occasion for that experience -- Maraṇasati.
The "fatigue" aspect of the condition may be less than ideal -- maybe let's say, "unenlightened". There are suttas about caring for the sick, as a duty, maybe in the vinaya too, and about being sick.
But mightn't some of the other "symptoms" in that definition -- for example "decrease in experiences of pleasure" -- be to some extent or in some ways promoted by Buddhist doctrine, which might call that "dispassion" or something (depending on how you define "pleasure")
If one names a mental state or "symptom" -- for example anhedonia -- it might be difficult to say in isolation whether that state is pathological. I think that any serious diagnoses might require meeting in person (a Buddhist teacher or, like, a psychiatrist). So far as I know, practicing clinicians have their own mentors.

Regarding your question "Why do you say...", i ask with emphasis on the specificity, not as a general form of dukkha. I'm asking if the fact that compassion can have a draining effect is mentioned in the suttas at all.

I think I've seen contemporary commentary that you're supposed to balance the four brahmaviharas -- so if compassion is becoming exhausted/exhausting then more of the other three.

If so, then it fits with the idea of balancing indriyas/pancabalani

The other two or three are often appropriate also (and maybe all, always).

Not sure how far this conversation should go, but i'd say that the first three brahmaviharas are all contained in the healthcare definition of compassion above. As such they all collectively run the risk of being conducive to compassion fatigue, as opposed to balancing each other (if that's what you're suggesting). My point is that these factors are not an endlessly benificient cornucopia in their own. I lean towards a balancing of brahmaviharas would have to be weighted against other factors apart from those particular three (with the exception of upeksha).

that wikipedia article on maranasati  is completely wrong. http://lucid24.org/sted/maranassati/index.html  .  the practice you're referring to in your post is corpse contemplation, whose purpose is contemplating impermanence and not self (AN 6.29). MN 10 satipatthana sutta labels the practice as "
1.6. Kāyā-nu-passanān-nava-sivathika-pabba" body contemplation - nine charnel ground stages

Here's my two cents: I used to be a nursing assistant. I did that for about seven years. I had to quit and change careers eventually due to burn out, stress, not wanting to be complicit with the ugly side of health insurance, etc.
After I quit I found that I had a lot of trouble feeling compassionate towards other people i.e. compassion fatigue. I had spent so much time and energy with so many people with extremely bad health, many of whom didn't really have a hope for recovery. It's like my compassion was used up and here it lay now like a strained muscle.
There are a lot of different angles to it. For one thing, it can be hard to identify with other people who aren't from that background when you've been in medical for so long. Other people complain about so many little things while I spent years helping nurses bandage bed sores, toileting people, washing dead bodies, talking with people about their own mortality, etc. After that, it was almost unbearable to hear people complain about getting served the wrong ice cream or having to deal with subpar customer service. Asymmetrical points of view between yourself and other can exacerbate alienation.
Also, just being around SO MUCH INTENSE SUFFERING(!) for so long is traumatic. It changes everything about how your nerves and adrenaline react to stimuli. Even a small trigger can cause you to feel so overwhelmed because your body is so used to responding to life and death situations with adrenaline. It's hard to regain a level perspective and your nerves don't know how to react to most situations.
Also also, I had seen so many cases where health insurance agencies were more interested in how to make money that how to provide compassionate care. The MOMENT somebody died, it was my job to empty their room of possessions as QUICKLY as possible so as to get a new patient in that room immediately because insurance companies don't make money on empty beds. I would hear people talk about how much money they could get from having a paralyzed patient on a ventilator because they'll be kept alive for extended periods even though there's no hope for improvement of their health. Dealing with this stuff makes you feel complicit; it makes you feel violated, like your own compassion is being used for unethical means. It makes you wonder if you're ever even doing the right thing when you exercise your compassion. It can break you.
Sorry, that's a lot to take in but it's all true. I talk about all of this to provide context and perspective. Now, how can you come back from that?
My answer is with baby steps. I find I am re-learning how to be a caring, compassionate, emotionally available person from the ground up. Acting with the level of openness and compassion you are used to right away is simply not realistic. You've got to take time with yourself to deal with these feelings and to stretch your emotions out gradually until it's no longer so draining and painful to open your heart again.
It's important to be compassionate and patient with yourself. I've had years to rebuild my sense of compassion and I STILL feel the strain sometimes. I just remember where I've come from and I remember that I'm in a learning process, or a re-learning process. I remember that it is okay to ask for help and to reach out to other people. It's also okay to fail sometimes as you make your way back.
All of that said, I'm not sure I've found a sutta that deals with this aspect specifically. Suttas have a lot to offer in terms of lessons and wisdom but it's important to be dynamic and finds ways of filling the gaps as it were. If you have an Abbott or monk you can talk to about it, do it! Someone like this with extensive practice can offer more dynamic support for something as specific as this and can offer wisdom that works in conjunction with the words you've read.
That is all for now. Thank you for your time :-)

What you are describing is EXACTLY empathy fatigue and not compassion fatigue. You state it right in your answer that you found it increasingly harder to IDENTITY with those who were under your care or in bad health. But IDENTIFYING with others is mark or empathy, not a mark of compassion. Thank you for clearly showing the difference.

Here is a good article about the difference: https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-compassion-paul-bloom

That article is from a western mind who has figured out the difference and discovered that nearly all of western culture is confused by not seeing the difference between compassion and empathy.

Puthujjanas addicted to sensuality base their life on emotions, or more generally on what they feel. For instance they base morality on emotions and knowledge on emotions. This is a big mistake, but very normal for people infatuated with emotions.
For instance, some people like to feel sad when somebody die, and when they see that somebody they expected to be sad is actually not sadden by the death in question, they become upset and ask things like '' how can you not be sadden by the death of this person''.
This is because Puthujjanas think that when they are sad, it means that they really liked the person who died, and really liking the person is a good thing in the first place, because it means ''they really cared'' about some other human (or animal). For instance, with the sutta about the death of the buddha, the Puthujjanas could not help themselves from crying a lot.. The non Puthujjanas apparently did not cry.
And Humanists are absolutely obsessed with showing how much they think and care about other people. They call this 'being selfless'' and they think that being selfless is good.
Then they even say that understanding a situation is only possible by living it. For instance, they say that it is not possible to know how it feels to do  base jumping, until there is the experience of basejumping.
This is why people in the entertainment industry keep asking people, like athletes, ''what does it feel like to win (or lose) some contest'' and ''describe your emotions'' so that ''the audience at home watching the tv live the thrill of the victory with you (the athlete)''. This is how insane those people are.
When it comes to suffering and compassion, people think that they are good as soon as they feel sad once they think that some person is miserable. When they do not feel sad when they see what they see as '' a suffering person'' they feel bad and they say something is wrong with them. Puthujjanas have only emotions in their life so they will always try to base their behavior on them and with their very flawed ideas about morality.
Their clinging to emotions carries over to the dhamma. When it comes to the dhamma, the usual perplexity is about sotapannas. Because sotapannas still have not destroyed the asavas, not yet ''abandoned them, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, obliterated them so that they are no more subject to future arising.'' , so how do they know that the destruction of the asavas exists, is possible and how do they know what to do in order to destroy the asavas (ie the noble 8 fold path)?
They ask the same thing with dependent origination: how do they know that ignorance is the condition for the sankharas, when they have not ceased. or how do they know that contact conditions cravings, when they still have not destroyed cravings? How do they know that rebirths exist when they have not experience rebirth?

Compassion fatigue comes from lacking the right view about morality. When there is wrong view or no view about right morality, there is no objective basis for the establishment of the equanimity required to avoid compassion fatigue. Instead, the mind of the social worker, not knowing the optimal behavioral solution, becomes emotionally caught up in the lost mind of the lost client.
For most Western Buddhists, compassion is an amoral Cultural Marxist orgy of self-acceptance; of condoning and drowning in each other's (often sexual) sins. This is why compassion fatigue occurs. Both client and therapist are swimming against the current of morality.
In MN 8, the Buddha said: "one stuck in the mud cannot pull another out of the mind". Jesus said: "when the blind lead the blind they both fall into a ditch". When both therapist & client are stuck in the mud, fatigue will occur when both don't know the way out of the mud.

Cunda, that one who is himself sinking in the mud should pull out
  another who is sinking in the mud is impossible; that one who is not
  himself sinking in the mud should pull out another who is sinking in
  the mud is possible. That one who is himself untamed, undisciplined,
  with defilements unextinguished, should tame another, discipline him,
  and help extinguish his defilements is impossible; that one who is
  himself tamed, disciplined, with defilements extinguished, should tame
  another, discipline him, and help extinguish his defilements is
  possible.
MN 8

What sila are you referring to, specifically?

It all stems from a wrong understanding, not of morality but of equanimity
Here is a quote from Shantideva's Way of the Bodhisattva / the path of light highlighting the true meaning of charity; there is no way that one can help all.
Even Buddha's compassion to liberate other beings was extended with some hesitation only to the taintless at a request of a Brahmā.

If the Perfect Charity frees the world from poverty, how could the
  Saviours of old have had it, since the world is still poor?
The
  Perfect Charity is declared to be the thought of surrendering to all
  beings our whole possessions and likewise the merit thereof; thus it
  is but a thought.
Where can fishes and other creatures be brought
  into safety, that I may not slay them? When the thought to do them no
  hurt is conceived, that is deemed the Perfect Conduct.
How many can I
  slay of the wicked, who are measureless as space? But when the thought
  of wrath is slain, all my foes are slain.
Whence can be found leather
  enough to cover the whole earth? But with a single leather shoe the
  whole ground is covered.
In like manner the forces without me I
  cannot control; but I will control the thought within me, and what
  need have I for control of the rest?


text:
Meditative-self
Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo mentioned that one shouldn't build up a meditative-self while being a meditator.
How can I prevent this from happening, as I have been quite stiff and getting quieter and more serious lately. Or is that not have to do with a 'meditative-self' view?
Please help!

He probably means that one can attatch to the process of transcending attatchment. If one is always a meditator striving towards Nirvana when  how can they get to Nirvana? One may merely believe in the meditative self because it is against the flow of what one was. The only one who is heroic in this way is ego.
Prevent the meditative self by not clinging to preventing the process as it continues.

How can I prevent this from happening, as I have been quite stiff and getting quieter and more serious lately. Or is that not have to do with a 'meditative-self' view?

When thoughts about a self arises just note them. They all belong to the 4th aggreagate of mental formations. There isn't really anything to do other than being mindful of them and reminding yourself.


text:
Problems of a Lay Mediator
Questions:

Is it normal to shy away from your family when it is hard to interact
  with them because they are so caught up in defilement and shaming my
  practices?
And is it proper to not respond to other people's questions or
  comments such as "wasn't that so good" or "do you like/dislike that?"
  or even "you believe in God, right, and you're a good Christian,
  right?" I seem to get these questions and have a hard time putting
  together an answer.

The Buddhist practice revolves around 3 practices:

development of morality and ethics with a view to developing control over the mind
development of control over the mind with a view of developing wisdom through direct and empirical experience
developing wisdom through direct and empirical experience

There is no shame in doing any of the above. Regardless of if you are from a particular culture or religious background you can practice them.

It is important to focus on your education because obviously you will not be able to live with your parents, forever. Skilling yourself for a job or career is most important if you want independence.

Putting up an answer is not a concern .This is your current orientation ,so its normal people ask if they aren't accustomed to seeing that .Buddha wasn't ashamed to beg with a bowel ,because he understood the purpose of his action ,only when you aren't sure about what you are doing ,do you start asking such questions.
I read a story about Buddha when he came back to his town after enlightenment ,he came with his begging bowel ,and took his son Rahula as well to the path.He met his father on his death bed ,his father was so hurt and angry, telling him now I have no heir and started crying for minutes on end ,telling Buddha "what all this non-sense you're doing ,begging ,you have wasted your life",and Buddha felt compassion and just removed his tears ,after his father settled down ,opened his eyes,and saw Buddha's face in such peace and silence,he told him "I never saw you so beautiful".Buddha was in perfect harmony with his path ,because it was his experience ,not because he was blindly following some principles or Sadhanas.

They’ll get over it.  I come from a family of devout Polish Catholics.  At first, they were openly hostile.  Then they were upset.  Then they were accepting.  Now they just make fun of me.
And if your family doesn’t get over it, well, then you know where the problem lies.  And you get to learn first hand how to wisely handle conflict.

I do not think anyone shames you if you practice or observe the five precepts. However, if you want to meditate be a  bit more obscure about it as some people will find it strange. However, you can practice Satipathana without the attention of other people. What exactly are they shaming you?

Teaching good at the beginning, in the middle and at the end full of meaning even in the letter, complete in every way stating the pure holy life. Hearing this a householder or a householder’s son, born to some clan, gains faith in the Thus Gone One. With that faith he reflects. The life in a household is full of defilements, going forth is like open space. It is not easy for one living a household life to lead the holy life complete and pure without defilements. What if I shave head and beard, don yellow robes and go forth as a homeless. Later he gives up a little wealth, or much wealth, a small circle of friends, or a large circle of friends, shaving head and beard, and donning yellow robes goes forth as a homeless.

One intent on realization is distancing himself from those who don't. As one distances oneself from unwholesome perceptions by giving appropriate attention to wholesome perceptions, thus attaining seclusion, just so one will be distancing oneself from situations where inappropriate attention is given and people who give inappropriate attention.
In my experience you can try to teach friends and family but lest they become your equals or better there will be that proportional distance.


text:
Conscience and Buddhism
How does Buddhism view conscience? Do you follow your conscience or Buddhist morality? Your conscience does not always in line with Buddhist morality. For example, cakes are not poison but generally are not considered as healthy food, Buddhism does not prohibit you from selling cakes to other people. But your conscience says, it's better to sell something that can make contribution of health to people at large e.g. healthier food compare to cakes.
Do you ignore your conscience or follow it?
EDIT
Although selling cake is not wrong livelihood but your conscience tells you to choose healthier contribution. It's easy to fall into extreme. Buddhism is the middle path. How do you keep it balance and not neglecting your conscience at the same time?
If selling cake is better than selling drugs, selling healthy food is better than selling cakes and so on. I am wondering what is the use of Right Livelihood as in the Noble Eightfold Path, are they all considered Right Livelihood, except drugs?
What I meant was which one do you listen to? Listening to conscience is necessary, as you said. But what you think is right or wrong does not necessarily true or middle path. If selling healthy food is better than selling cakes, logically one will follow what is best, we consciously put the latter one into the "not to do" list and choose former one as our Right Livelihood. But how do you know if you follow this kind of thinking you're not going to fall into extreme? We create our own version of Right Livelihood. Both cakes and healthy food are not considered wrong according to Buddha.

It's a good intention to desire to make a livelihood that does neither harm one self nor others, and conscience is very importand toward path and beyond.
As for how to use it all the way to highest liberation, best to get known the talk by the Sublime Buddha to his Son Ven. Rahula.
Mudita
[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for liberation from it]

The Buddha clearly advocates a sense of conscience in MN8:

MN8:12.39: ‘Others will be conscienceless, but here we will have a sense of conscience.’

Conscience is not listed by itself. In fact, a sense of conscience is listed with forty-three other items to consider. Please consult MN8 for the full list (it is too long to repeat here). From MN8, we can understand that true conscience requires relinquishing identity view. I.e., conscience considers all.
Conscience is a spectrum. It is not an absolute. We need to consider what is more skillful and what is less skillful. Making and selling cake is more skillful than making and selling drugs. Making and selling healthy meals is more skillful than making and selling cakes. But we may only have the resources and talent to make cake. If all we can do is make and sell cake, then we do that to the best of our ability. Perhaps we can make special healthy cake and suggest that for customers. Conscience is a spectrum. We start with where we are and see how we can be more skillful.
In discussing selling food, we're also touching on Right Livelihood:

MN117:30.2: Right livelihood is twofold, I say.
MN117:30.3: There is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
MN117:30.4: And there is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.

Conscience should inform our Right Livelihood. Selling healthy food is a good deed and certainly better than selling cake. But if we become preoccupied with our business and our good deeds, we run the danger of focusing on gain for gain. In that case we should heed our conscience and choose the right livelihood that is noble and undefiled. To understand this, we study the suttas and nurture our conscience with insight, wisdom and learning.
And what should guide our conscience? DN16 addresses this directly by framing the three practice categories:

DN16:1.14.3: “Such is ethics, such is immersion, such is wisdom.
DN16:1.14.4: When immersion is imbued with ethics it’s very fruitful and beneficial.
DN16:1.14.5: When wisdom is imbued with immersion it’s very fruitful and beneficial.

Let our conscience be guided by the practice of ethics, immersion and wisdom.

Although selling cake is not wrong livelihood but your conscience tells you to choose healthier contribution. It's easy to fall into extreme. Buddhism is the middle path. How do you keep it balance and not neglecting your conscience at the same time?

Thank you. I have added a new paragraph about selling cake.

If selling cake is better than selling drugs, selling healthy food is better than selling cakes and so on. I am wondering what is the use of Right Livelihood as in the Noble Eightfold Path, are they all considered Right Livelihood, except drugs?

Conscience does indeed affect livelihood. Added references.

What I meant was which one do you listen to? Listening to conscience is necessary, as you said. But what you think is right or wrong does not necessarily true or middle path. If selling healthy food is better than selling cakes, logically one will follow what is best, we consciously put the latter one into the "not to do" list and choose former one as our Right Livelihood. But how do you know if you follow this kind of thinking you're not going to fall into extreme? We create our own version of Right Livelihood. Both cakes and healthy food are not considered wrong according to Buddha.

Ah. Good point. What should guide our conscience? Hopefully the explanation added will assist.

In general, your question is about where to stop. It should be known that in Buddhism, we don't stop. We keep going all the way until the Final Result.
As you implied, for every "better" and "purer" there's "even better" and "more sublime". We don't stop, we keep going.
And as we climb this ladder from selling drugs to cakes, to healthy food - eventually we realize that if we were to be consistent to this principle, we need to expand our Right Livelihood not just to govern what we sell, but what we give to the world in all other senses.
And so we get to our words and deeds, and realize that the chain of events that we start with our deeds, and chains of thoughts we start with our words - are as important, if not more, than what we sell. We evolve from mere Right Livelihood to Right Action and Right Speech.
And then if we keep going, we realize that our thoughts are equally important, because our thoughts are where it all starts.
And THEN if we keep going, we realize that being so radical we fall into danger of getting aggressive and hateful against the people who do not live up to the same high standards we do. We realize that, if we are to stay true to our principles and keep on to perfection, we must not allow ourselves to get polarized, and must allow other people to be imperfect, which means some of them will sell cakes and maybe even sell drugs - but we won't hate them for this. This is Right Thought.
And then, if we keep going, we realize that there are natural reasons in the world, natural causes for why some people want to take drugs, and why other people want to eat junk food or cakes. We realize that these reasons are mostly psychological and perhaps social and karmic in nature. So we turn to the realization that working to improve these psychological, social, and karmic conditions must be the most important thing.
So we realize, if we truly want to help people, we need to help their minds to be less messed up. We should teach and heal their minds, that should be our new Right Livelihood now, far above selling healthy food.
But if we are to teach and heal people, we must start with ourselves. What are these thoughts of hatred, thoughts of judgement, thoughts of hopelessness, etc. in our own mind?
So, we realize that the most helpful thing we could do is to watch and heal our own mind, which is what's called Right Effort.
So we start watching our mind and engage in Mindfulness and Meditation.
And as we practice all this we finally get first hand experience of what Liberation is. Liberation is higher than meditation, higher than mindfulness and right effort, higher than right thoughts, action, and speech, higher than selling healthy food.
Once you've experienced Liberation - you can "sell" Liberation. Wouldn't that be awesome for everyone? TM

Canonically, "right livelihood" (or rather "not wrong livelihood") for a layperson was given as, something like, "don't trade in weapons, poisons, meat, human beings, nor alcohol".
And I think that's all that's written, about that topic.
Anyway, I do just that? As a software developer myself, I've avoided working for "defence" industries.
I suppose the work I do is kind of ethically neutral -- if I help to create a telephone system for example then it's more or less up the system's users, whether they use it for good or for ill.
Similarly cakes, I guess, if you're a baker here then you'll be selling breads and cakes, and like little pre-made pizzas, it's up to the customers to choose wisely and "eat as part of a balanced diet" etc.
Later teachers might have added other guidelines, about lay livelihood, or intermixed them with other precepts -- don't lie, don't defraud your customers, be good to your employees and partners, etc.
So do that too, and try to be good outside of work, there's like DN 31 with advice for lay ethics, and e.g. ...
THE BUDDHA’S TEACHINGS ON PROSPERITY
At Home, At Work, In the World
BHIKKHU BASNAGODA RAHULA
... which is an anthology from the suttas of the advice for laypeople.
But if you want to perfect right livelihood the canonical way to do that is to become a monastic.
Or, I remember a canonical story (but not the reference for that story) -- the story was that someone had to support his ageing parents. So he'd get clay from the river bank (without digging it!) and make it into pots ... then leave the pots (without asking for money) and people would take the pots and leave behind money ... and he'd use the money to buy food for his parents -- and that was an example of right livelihood.
I doubt whether "my livelihood" is especially "right" -- but as you said, "not considered wrong".

I think the OP misunderstood the meaning of middle path as something between extreme good and extreme bad,  you can clarify the meaning of middle path in your answer

As I see it, conscience is a natural expression of human awareness; it is, in a way, enlightenment personified. Buddhist practice is meant to develop our sense of awareness (or being-ness), and the natural outcome of that practice is that we become more and more attuned to the natural expressions of conscience. This is not a binary equation, this is the development of a deep faculty.
So yes, healthy food is better than sweets, sure. But that's merely the physical dimension, and becoming overly attached to the physical can be problematic in its own right. People like to celebrate; they like to enjoy themselves; they like to treat others to good things and be treated in turn. Sweets in that context are good things, and any Buddhist baker could happily and conscientiously contribute to those acts. A wedding cake is an expression of joy; is it appropriate to dilute that joy by insisting that the cake be 'healthy'? Conscience might enter into it if we run across someone who has a dangerously unhealthy diet. That is a matter of compassion, because we don't want to feed into someone's sweetness-cravings. But by the same token, we don't want to feed into someone's health-cravings, either.
Buddhism deals directly with cravings, not with the targets of those cravings, which are (ultimately) irrelevant. Don't try to piece it out as a set of rules about specific things; let yourself grow into it organically.

Buddhism does not tell you to sell cakes. Just because Buddhism does not tell you to not do something does not mean you should do it.
Buddhism has taught addiction to sensual pleasures is suffering, for both monks & laypeople. Therefore, if you have a good conscience, you should try to reduce addictions & unhealthy lifestyles.

What is your answer?


text:
Eightfold path & gender dysphoria
Would the eightfold path help someone transcend gender dysphoria? Is gender dysphoria a matter of clinging or a matter of hardwired biology?

I might be inclined to associate that dysphoria with identity view  -- but how can there be sensible answers to this question, and not just uninformed opinions -- what kind of answer/information are you looking for?

@ChrisW Nobody is sensible about this issue? What are you saying? I was hoping someone would have a proper informed opinion. I have gender dysphoria by the way.

What are you saying? I guess I'm saying that it isn't useful to have people posting answers about topics they don't know about. So a guideline is that answers should be "based on" something: for example based on a reference (e.g. to scripture), or based on personal experience (i.e. "something that happened to you personally"). So I'm wondering what kind of answer you might be hoping for: some reference to scripture, personal experience, or...? And some scriptural references are uncertain (see e.g. here).

Why would someone post an answer they don't know about? I mean you think everyone who would post an answer could not possibly have any insight into this? If nobody has any insight then there won't be any answers. If someone does post uninformed opinion then you can't deal with it then?

As already mentioned, any sort of identity matter is dealt with as anatta in buddhism as far as i can tell. That likely goes for any form of gender identity, however it may present itself.
However, i'm not sure that the idea of anatta pertains to transcendence, because the word seems to connotate tanha in my understanding: It may lead us into desiring the notion of an elevated state, whereas anatta is arguably a question of no state at all.
The second half of your question seems like a question deemed unanswerable in buddhism (avyākata). For instance, this is mentioned in the Sabbasava Sutta:

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html

Yeah, I mean like transcendence towards letting go. This is a great answer and has no opinion about it except an opinion that not attatching to opinion is a good thing.

The first step of the Satipatthana  is to see how impure the body is. Bikkhu analyo has a guide on this
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/satipatthanapracticeguide.pdf

Probably not.  I mean, ultimately it would but for all practical purposes, this is something you'll have to contend with for the rest of your life.  One of the great misconceptions about Buddhist practice is that enlightenment will somehow solve all of our personal, psychological issues.  That's simply not the case.  Enlightenment is not perfection; neither is it complete freedom from all of our obstacles and misconceptions.  Only a fully realize Buddha - one without karmic remainder - is free from all personal difficulties.
There's a koan in the Zen tradition that's sometimes given those who have just experienced daikensho or "great awakening". It goes something like this: a bull passes through a window, but the tail remains.  Why can't the tail pass through?  Even when we wake up, we still have that little bit of tail that we have to reconcile.  In fact, the greater part of our practice post enlightenment will be spent addressing it.  While that tail ceases to be a form of personal anguish, it's still there asking for us to deal with it.  Think of enlightenment like a dinner party.  While you get to enjoy the joy of liberation, ultimately, those dishes are going to be waiting for you the following morning.  Fortunately, the enlightened heart is one hell of scrub brush.
(And I can't take credit for that last line.  It's a riff on Jack Kornfield's book After the Ecstasy, The Laundry.)


text:
Is the seer and seen different? Example i saw tree . tree and "me" are different? Or tree and "me" are same?
Is the seer and seen different?
Is th watcher and watching different ?
Is the observer and observe different?
camera and picture  are different ?
For example
I saw  a tree?
Tree and "me" different?
Tree and "me" same?
It is very difficult question.
Please correct if  i use wrong grammar

My mind say.we are mirror. But this is  philosophy. Not experience

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because its Hinduism

My dear friend.  Hindu ,muslim, Christian,buddhism. it is clothes . Please  you are Not cloth....You wear muslim cloth,buddhism cloth,Hindu cloth.this is not you .This is not your identity.

A self, a tree are merely concepts - they don't exist in reality. Ultimately one cannot go out and locate a tree or a self. What exist is experiences; the experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling and thinking.
When you see a tree, there is a seeing going on, ie. the visual process - there is the eye sense faculty and its corresponding object which is light. The idea that it's a separate you or self that is seeing a tree is merely an idea, a mental formation.
In reality there is no seer behind the seeing. There is an object and mind arising to that object at any given moment. This can clearly be seen in Vipassana meditation.

It is the people who rely on the commentaries, like [REMOVED BY A MODERATOR], who talk a lot about  ''doer''
They say that being enlightened is when there is no doer, instead there is ''pure action'' or ''pure phenomena''.
for instance Mahasi quotes this

Thus one realizes that feeling itself is what feels the plea- sure
  associated with pleasant sense objects and so on. We con- ventionally
  say with regard to the appearance of feeling, “I feel.” 512 In order
  to point out that there is no doer apart from actual phe- nomena, the
  commentary says that feeling itself is what feels. 513

https://wisdomexperience.org/academy/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/07/Manual-of-Insight-for-Course.pdf
The pali word they use is ''Karaka atta'' http://www.abhidhamma.com/Mahasi_anatta.pdf
you have to read all their texts to know what they say about ''a doer''.
Their obsession with the doer comes from their lack of understanding the baya sutta, where they cram their view of lack of doer, instead of lack of craving, because the popular view is that ''people suffer because they judge, so when they do not judge they do not suffer'', and ''phenomenologically'' it would mean that there is no subject-object, ie no doer, but only phenomena .
If you want a sutta talking about doer (or lack of doer) there is this
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html

“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How,
  indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself
  [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do
  you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or
  beginning an action?”[3]
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4]
  clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. [5]
“What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] ...
  is there an element of effort [7] ... is there an element of
  steadfastness [8] ... is there an element of persistence [9] ... is
  there an element of endeavoring?” [10]
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings
  clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

Bikkhu sujato translate attakāro as ''one's volition''

Thanks bro ......

I would say this represents a conventional view, to be balanced by an ultimate view for which there is no doer. Not arguing, just noting that these quotes do not settle the matter.

You may as well ask: is the left hand the same as the right hand? Both are part of a greater whole, both work together to tie a knot, sure. But that knot wouldn't get tied if the two hands were the same.
When you see a tree, there is you, there is the tree, and there is the awareness that you are seeing a tree. That last is like a knot that you and the tree tie together, forming the basis of a mental object. If you rise to the level of the non-dual then the boundaries of identity disappear; there is no you, there is no tree, and that knot of a mental object unravels.

Bro great .. ..


text:
Is it OK for a Buddhist teacher to charge their students an hourly rate for their time?
Charging money for teaching time seems like it goes against the spirit of the dharma. I’m asking because I was looking for a teacher and came across one that did charge money.

It's not OK.

“It’s not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ānanda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when five qualities are established
  within the person teaching. Which five?
“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak
  step-by-step.’
“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak
  explaining the sequence (of cause & effect).’
“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak out of
  compassion.’
“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak not for
  the purpose of material reward.’
“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak without
  hurting myself or others.’
  (AN 5:159)

.

One
should not make an effort everywhere,
should not be another’s hireling,
should not live dependent on another,
should not go about
as a trader in the Dhamma.
  (Ud 6:2)

The Buddha taught the Dhamma is a "gift". A "gift" is something given free of charge.

The best of gifts is the gift of the teaching.
Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, dānānaṃ yadidaṃ dhammadānaṃ.
The best sort of kindly speech is to teach the Dhamma again and again
  to someone who is engaged and who lends an ear.
Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, peyyavajjānaṃ yadidaṃ atthikassa ohitasotassa
  punappunaṃ dhammaṃ deseti.
AN 9.5

Hm.
What exactly will this person be teaching you? Buddhist philosophy? Proper sitting posture? Some special 'technique'? Most buddhist things you can learn for free from other teachers, so in what way are this person's teachings special or unique, so that you'd be willing to fork out an hourly rate?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of charging money for certain kinds of training. But it's a tricky issue. It's one thing to attach a monetary value to your time as a teacher; that's almost a necessity in our debased commercial world, at least if you want to teach full-time. But it's quite a different thing to attach a monetary value to Buddhism itself. The practice is how we establish value in our lives, and so it can't really be reduced to other forms of value. If someone is trying to sell h'er insights because s'he believes h'er insights are superior, well... hm.
This reminds me of a joke I made up once: Olympic competitive meditation events. Is that really where we want to go?

I once paid for relationship counselling, for example, though that wasn't Buddhist. The counsellor was trained, and it was his only work, so payed him, his rates were reasonable and he acted like a good friend. I'm not sure what equivalent role there might be in a Buddhist context -- for lay people? And the OP is in a fairly remote part of the USA, there might be no traditional Sangha there. That experience of mine was for individual counselling, though (not only paying to listen to a lecture, or to sit in a hall).

The teacher I found was for learning meditation and the dharma. I agree it is a tricky issue. She doesn’t believe her insights are superior but she is a lay person who has been given permission to teach by her teachers. @ChrisW I wouldn’t say I am in a remote part of the USA but I am a homebody. The teacher is not too far from me. We would be doing most of our meetings by video conferencing and meeting quarterly in person.

@Parag I wouldn’t say I am in a remote part of the USA Ah, you're close to Philadelphia -- my mistake, I should have zoomed out on the map a little more to see the bigger picture. It's that I used to have family in Clearfield PA, and driving there seemed relatively remote, compared to the Golden Horseshoe that I came from (where, there are Buddhists).

Seems honest enough to me...

@ChrisW yeah PA can be pretty rural in the central part of the state. I do have a meditation center that is about 25 minutes away. I have been there several times. They don’t have resident teacher though.  I know some people mentioned SN Goenka’s center. We have one in Delaware which is not too far away. I don’t know if I can wake up every morning at 4:30 though.

If you are teaching someone to pass an exam on Buddhism, it's ok to accept a payment. Because the student is just trying to gain some qualification required for his or her career. But if it is someone who is genuinely trying to attain enlightenment or someone seeking counselling for his or her misery, it's immoral to ask for a payment. Donations can be accepted.
In simple terms, it's immoral to ask a payment from those who seek refuge in the Dhamma.

I don't disagree. But many or even most medical doctors are paid though, aren't they, and they "counsel people for their misery" -- their doing that isn't immoral, or, is it?

@ChrisW these days becoming a doctor requires you to spend a fortune up to the point you pass out from medical college. Also, curing a sickness require making of medicine and sometimes doing complex surgeries which require the use of expensive technologies and resources. The whole system is dependent on money whereas the Dhamma comes from the Buddha himself free of charge and taught by the Sangha themselves free of charge. So there is a considerable difference between the two.

In my opinion, it is OK for a layperson to charge money as a teacher if the student prepares to pay for it. I can't recall Buddha saying that his Dhamma should be taught free of charge. However, Buddhist monks are not allowed to handle money according to the Vinaya.
It is great to see some people are prepared to pay money to learn Dhamma!

In Mahayana, Dharma is considered precious, as precious as gold and diamonds, to put it very mildly.
Because of this, it's not unheard of in Mahayana for a student to offer something valuable, or indeed expensive, to one's prospective teacher as a gesture of respect for the value of the teaching as well as a sign of one's serious intentions.

I myself teach Dhamma and never charge for that. After class, students may leave a donation, which I share by half with the owner of the place where we sit. That's a best solution, because I don't feel as selling something, but giving a gift. And that makes me really happy. On the other hand, students also practice generosity, which makes them happy. That way, at the end of the class we all part happy. If there would be some price set, maybe I would think the price is low for the effort invested and they would feel maybe the price is too high for what they got. So we would all part unhappy.
Of course, this is all possible, since I am financially independent and teaching is not source of my income, but of my joy of sharing something really precious. Other teachers are maybe in different situation and I can understand that. But, on the other hand, nobody force them to be teachers and they can find maybe some other, less morally conflicting source of income. Besides, as mentioned, if it is about longer retreat, where place should be rented and food provided, of course some fee is a must. But again, I think, only to cover the costs and not the paycheck for the teacher.

As someone once remarked: The Dharma is free. The lights, the heat, and the rent, however, are not.
Moreover, why wouldn't you be willing to "pay" for something as precious as the Dharma?

It is not uncommon to see a donation box in a Sri Lankan temple,
It is not uncommon for a senior monk to ask tourists for a donation for work on the temple.
It is not uncommon to make a donation after a meditation event, especially if food and lodging is provide.
In Sri Lanka it is standard practice for a tutor to charge a fixed price to a student studying for a religion exam, the same as with any other exam.
This person would prefer to learn dharma from a person teaching for merit rather than cash.

It depends on intention.

“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.’

Payment could cover costs of hiring a space, of travel or materials. Asking for these doesn't mean it is taught without thought, the teacher may well not actually profit, financially, from it at all.


text:
Questions about buying a Buddha statue
How important is the hand gesture of a Buddha statue?
I heard in a video that I should definitely get a Dhyāna Mudrā (Meditation) statue or a bhūmisparśa (calling the Earth to witness / touching the Earth) statue to deepen my practice... Which is unfortunate because I'm on a tight budget and found a good deal I'd like to snag on an Abhayamudrā (gesture of fearlessness/giving refuge) statue.
Secondly, is it okay to buy one with a (small) crack in the plate behind the head (not sure what it's called)? As some have pointed out that could symbolize impermanence... I just want to make sure it's "kosher".
Lastly, can I keep my statue in storage until I have a shrine or at least a clean and appropriate room? Or should I wait to until I have a good place to set it out?
Thanks in advance!

The answers might depend on the school of Buddhism, and vary. There were several different answers to this questions -- Is it wrong to buy a Buddha statue in Thailand from a Buddhist point of view? -- perhaps from different views or traditions. Might you want to edit to clarify which tradition or type of practice you're asking about?

I practice Therevada Buddhism and Mahasi style Vipassana. I would like a statue for inspiration and eventually a shrine when I have space

For home decorating purposes, the statues hand gestures, condition or placement probably has some importance.
For buddhist practice, the above really has no importance at all.
(If you could elaborate on what you want to accomplish, it could be easier to answer your question).

I practice Therevada Buddhism and Mahasi style Vipassana. I would like a statue for inspiration and eventually a shrine when I have space

This is the absolute answer. Even for the decoration purposes, the Mudrā literally is a matter of preference. Usually, Dhyāna Mudrā is the most peaceful and soothing posture of all. Take a look at the Samadhi Statue @ Mahamewuna Garden, Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka.

Spend time shopping for a Buddha image. Find one that inspires you, not others.
For this writer the face is the most important feature, next to size. He always has a good meditation kneeling in front of the twenty foot image at the local temple, even on Poya day. Besides size this image also has a wonderful face.


text:
Who is experiencing the non self?
There is no self that is permanent. All this results from 5 aggregates, then who is experiencing the non self?

There are several questions on this site which are more-or-less about this topic.
One which I found helpful was, How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
I also liked this little summary of Right View, which includes, "A thicket of wrong views".

Why, of course Buddha is experiencing the non-self. Arahant is experiencing the non-self. Bodhisattva from the first Bhumi and above is experiencing the non-self.

You have this question a bit upside down and backwards. The point is that we mistakenly associate the 'self' with the five aggregates. What we think is the 'self,' isn't. It's like walking around wearing a name-tag that says 'me,' and pointing at it whenever anyone asks who we are. If someone rips off our name-tag and runs away, do we suddenly stop being 'me'? But we are so used to pointing at the name-tag, that we lose track of the distinction between it and us.
The idea of 'no self' is a way of ripping off the name-tags. It's not a question of who is there experiencing 'non self'; it's a question of who is there experiencing all the false labels of 'self'.

Is the name tag "the aggregates", is this analogy? Are you saying there is a self but that it's other than the aggregates? :-) And what's the basis of this answer, what doctrine (or personal experience) is it based on?

The various aggregates that we identify with become 'name tags'. You have awareness, therefore you have experience that is reasonably interpreted as a self. The Buddhist problematic arises when you begin to connect with various aggregates as 'permanent' features of an 'identified' self. You can't really argue with 'I am,' because 'I am' is the fundamental condition for arguing with anything. The problem enters when 'I am' becomes 'I am this' or 'I am that.'

Thank you (and I didn't mean to challenge you, I just didn't understand the answer).

Oh, no worries. I didn't think you were being challenging; nothing here to challenge except our own curiosity.

The mind experiences not-self.
Questions about "who" are irrelevant, per the Phagguna Sutta .

I can't give answer this question.  But I  will attempt this question.
We aren't going "non self "
First question " who am i "
I am "name" so I can live without "name" so  I am not "name".
Who told you aren't name?.  Answer =mind saying
You can understand....
I am "identity " identity means docter, engineer, monk, Hindu,Muslim.
So  without  identity you can live so you aren't identity..
Who told you aren't identity? Answer =mind saying.
I am physical body. In physical body many parts so we are discussed.
I am  hair  so without hair we can live so I amnot hair.
I am leg and hand  But without leg we can live so I amnot leg.
I am eye, ear , but without   eye and ear we can live  so I amnot eye and ear..
I am  mind but without  mind can live so I amnot  mind for  example  comma .
I am "breath" but without breath we can't live..
This is my last   lever. I amnot going next level.

That’s exactly right.  When you find out “who” that is, you will have resolved the matter of birth and death.
Just keep asking “who?  who?  who?”  Don’t put the question down for a second.  Keep it so close that no air can escape.


text:
Are Jataka tales authentic words of the Buddha?
If these stories could be taken to be truly narrated by the Buddha, it gives some interesting twists to the generally understood history of India and Indian philosophy.
For example, there are Jataka stories such as Dasaratha Jataka and Ghaṭapaṇṭita jataka that give the Buddha's previous birth as either a character in the popular epic Ramayana, or as kin of a character in the popular epic Mahabharata. There are also other Jatakas that narrates some of the other characters of Mahabharata, but in all such cases, with much less dramatic than their depictions in the epics.
As of now, the general Indian belief is that the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata (and thus the philosophies depicted in them) preceded the Buddha. However, in the Suttas there is hardly any reference to them, unlike the references to many other schools of thoughts. Thus, I would assume these epics were non-existent at the Buddha's time. In my knowledge, the first reference in the Buddhist literature to these epics in its present form is in Buddhacarita, the biography of the Buddha written by Asvagosha in the 1st century CE. In that Asvagosha presumes that these epics were fully developed before the Buddha's time, and hence bring references to those in conversations people had with the Buddha. So, I was concluding that these epics would have formed sometime after the Buddha, but before the 1st Century CE. And, Asvagosha's references to Ramayana and Mahabharata are more in line with its present day form than its depictions in the Jatakas. (And, I would assume Asvagosha's narrations may be fictitious)
If Jataka commentaries can be taken as being based on the narrations passed down from the Buddha, rudimentary versions of these epics are coming from the Buddha's narrations. They come as isolated accounts, not connected together as a grand epic. They stories also lack the dramatic turns and glorification of characters that are found in those epics. In addition, the character depictions in the Jataka are inconsistent with the depictions in the epics known at Asvagosha's time.
So, I was thinking about two possibilities. 1. If the commentaries are regarded as completely based on the narrations given by the Buddha, then the epics developed later by deriving inspirations from Jataka stories. In other words, the glorious characters of these epics were created by altering the original narrations by the Buddha. (I tend to believe this. However, I need to make sure that the Jataka commentaries are authentic and in existence at least at the time of the first council to assert this.) 2. Alternatively, these stories were inserted later when the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata became popular. In that case, characters from the epics were adopted to convey a message. I believe this is unlikely, because Jataka depictions of these characters are much less attractive and plain compared to their depictions in the epics. And, the rest of the Pali Suttas are matter of fact depictions and not later concoctions. So, I prefer to assume that Pali Jatakas also hold the same authenticity as the rest of Pali Suttas.

I'm going to close this as duplicate, not because it's a bad question, but because there are already some answers on the linked/original topic. If this isn't a duplicate -- if this is a different question, if it's not already answered by the answers in that other -- please clarify in what way this is a different question, what is the question that hasn't already been asked.

The Jataka were obviously a childish religion created by King Ashoka that completely distorted Buddhism and the meaning of "jati" ("birth"). Today, in Hindu India, the word "jati" retains its original meaning of "self/social identity" yet the later Buddhists perverted the Buddha's teaching about "jati" and continue to do so today in a very mischievous superstition.


text:
How are "all types of beings originally formless"?
How are "all types of beings originally formless"?

p100 The Sutra of Hui-neng, Grand Master of Zen: With Hui-neng's
Commentary on the Diamond Sutra

I'm asking because this page [quoting His Highness the Dalai Lama] says

Immediately thereupon, the intermediate state begins—except for those
  reborn in the formless realms of infinite space, infinite
  consciousness, "nothingness" or peak of cyclic existence, for whom the
  new life begins immediately upon death

If we all are originally formless, then our original nature has no intermediate state, while our unenlightened state does.
How can that be?

I'm unable to understand the question. How can an original state have an intermediate state? How can an unenlightened state not have an intermediate state?

The pull downwards into form, into the unenlightened craving for identity, is driven by craving. Craving leads to grasping and then to rebirth.

SN12.23:4.6: I say that rebirth has a vital condition.
SN12.23:4.7: And what is it?
SN12.23:4.8: You should say: ‘Continued existence.’
SN12.23:4.9: I say that continued existence has a vital condition.
SN12.23:4.10: And what is it?
SN12.23:4.11: You should say: ‘Grasping.’

In contrast, moving upwards skillfully, we have practice that leads to the formless and beyond:

SN46.54:15.9: The apex of the heart’s release by equanimity is the dimension of nothingness, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.”


text:
Buddhism and social roles
Is a buddhist's goal to transcend a culture's social roles? How do enlightened beings see social roles?
As buddhists try to not make distinctions between people, I would imagine that they are not particularly concerned with social roles. Is that true?

In India, the word "jati" ("birth") refers to "social role". In the Buddhist suttas, "jati/social role" is called "sattanikāye" ("category/group/class of beings"). For example, in the Angulimala Sutta, the life of a monk is called "Noble Jati/Birth" ("ariyāya jātiyā").
In moral teachings, the Buddha strongly emphasized social roles. However, in enlightenment teachings, the Buddha pointed out social role brings suffering. For example, if your social role is a mother or father, you often suffer about your children. This is why enlightenment is described as the ending of identification with social role ("khīṇā
 jāti").
For example, upon his enlightenment, the Buddha declared: "This is my last jati/birth (social role)". The Buddha fully accepted his social responsibility as The Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, the leader of the Sangha and the liberator of the wise.
However, for the Buddha's Fully Enlightened Disciples, they declared: "Jati/birth is exhausted" because they had no special social status, apart from being strictly conforming disciples of the Buddha (unlike monks today, who each try to create their own sect & own teachings).
For laypeople, the Sigalovada Sutta is the most detailed of many suttas that strictly define the social roles of laypeople.


text:
Software Engineer not challenged enough at work, feels like wasting my time
I work as a software engineer. I've been working at this workplace for around 2 years. But, I don't find the work challenging enough (just boring bugfixes only). Given that I spend 8 hours at my workplace, I probably do just around 3 hours of productive work. I think I am wasting my time. Is it bad if I want better work ? Should I consider this as my aversion and just continue with my work ?

All Buddhism is going to tell you on this issue is that you do not have to suffer your way through it. You have a number of attachments:

An attachment to your job, which may be due to loyalty, fear, a sense of personal responsibility, etc
An attachment to having challenging (meaningful, fulfilling) work
A set of self-identification attachments, in which you envision yourself as more successful and productive than you actually are

There is nothing wrong with you staying in this job and continuing to do this work. There is nothing wrong with you deciding to advance yourself (either by finding a different job or by working for advancement within this company). The only problematic thing would sitting in this state of dissatisfaction because you cannot resolve these competing attachments. So, contemplate these attachments a bit to try to get at their root; meditate a bit to clear your head. Then make a choice, and trust it's the right one.

Examine feelings to understand inclination and motivation. In particular, pay attention to neutral feelings, which yield to ignorance for the unaware. Neutral feelings are very subtle and seductive.

MN44:27.2: “The underlying tendency to greed should be given up when it comes to pleasant feeling. The underlying tendency to repulsion should be given up when it comes to painful feeling. The underlying tendency to ignorance should be given up when it comes to neutral feeling.”

Fixing bugs does not happen in a vacuum. The bugs are part of larger problems and contexts that need to be addressed. People are always involved. Take an interest in the larger purpose of your work, its impact on the world and how you might work with others to apply your skills in a broader context. To do so requires an open heart.

MN43:31.2: Firstly, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.

Write open source code and talk more with people to understand their needs. Live and work with your heart.

I work as a software developer myself and I can relate to that ,I used to get attached to making better features and also thought that I wasn't productive enough ,like spaced out ,this is perfectly normal ,and according to dependent origination everything happens for a reason ,including the feelings you are having towards the subject ,maybe you felt burnout from prior constant work .
What I learned is that I was a perfectionist and there was a desire to showoff or prove myself as I was a junior dev ,and this over time lead to burnout ,I figured out I was too concerned about it ,actually all feelings are possible ,any work situation is possible ,bugs can always be there ,even if it was long time since they showed up ,basically don't narrow yourself to what you should always do to fix life,life is not code.
If you don't know what to do ,then thats the case ,you don't know what to do ,you don't need to constantly know what to do,its not natural to always know what to do.

I think Buddhist doctrine is just that work (or anything else for that matter) isn't going to be perpetual bliss, if what you're looking for is:

Constant novelty
Permanence
Praise
Comfort
Ever-increasing wealth, leisure, power, fame, etc.

According to the canon isn't it better to become a monk instead, and to practice that full-time?
And if you want to evaluate the work you do, evaluate it on the basis of, "What is right, what is ethical? What course of action may 'benefit self and others'? What will I not regret, what is it that will cause 'no remorse'?"
This answer referenced some of the kind of advice there is about lay livelihood in the canon.

Is it bad if I want better work ?
Not necessarily.
There may be a distinction between "craving" (which is always unwholesome) versus "desire" -- which is sometimes wholesome, especially if desire for something "virtuous" (like enlightened behaviour).
See https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=chanda
As well as whether it's virtuous (e.g. compassionate) people might also distinguish between whether it's "skilful".
So a "skilful" kind of desire might actually do the things that would be necessary to arrive there, to achieve that ("achieve" is perhaps also known as "finish" or "to have accomplished, completed").

What "matters", possibly, is the inter-personal relationships ... the people you work with.
You phrased this as a question about desire/aversion which can seem very internal/solitary.
And software engineering can seem impersonal: working only with machines.
But it's people who we work with and for, people we benefit, people we're kind to or not kind to, people who'd consider us a co-worker or not, people whose lives are affected (or not) somehow.
Does work benefit someone -- are they glad you do it?
Does the work give an opportunity to live -- and to live peacefully?
Is it an unethical waste, not just of what you want to be doing, but of what you might and should be doing?
Maybe that's a slightly broader question to ask.
If you continue to do it then will you experience "remorse", i.e., "I 'should not' have done that, it was morally wrong"?
Another thing that matters is, who are you with? Are you with good people, bad people? Because -- both from personal experience and because the suttas say so repeatedly -- I think that you become a better person if you spend time with good people (and, unless you're enlightened, worse if you spend time with bad people). So I think it's probably judged fine and proper to want to find and keep "good company", to develop "good" friendship.

As always, Ted Wrigley's answer is brilliant and a great starting point for mine ;)
In the final perspective, there is not much difference between suppressing your aversion on one hand, and leaving in hope of finding a better place, on the other. Both are the actions of samsaric mind - called "monkey mind" or "hunting dog mind" in Zen.
What really matters is being true. Until you learn to be true, you will keep recreating these situations, over and over again.
Being true is what's called "finding your true self" in Zen, or "Mahamudra" in Kagyu.
When you master being true, you no longer make these half-choices that create these situations of conflict between "should" and "can". You are 100% authentic. If you leave - you leave 100%. If you stay, you stay 100%. First of all, in your own mind.
More importantly, when you are true every step along the way, these kinds of situations do not arise.

"True" has two meanings that I know of: a) not lying; b) something like as used in the phrase "No true Scotsman". And I think I didn't used to find the latter kind of usage really precise enough, to be understandable and reliable guidance, when I tried to understand Buddhism via modern authors' paraphrases. And I mix with that the idea of sunyata, of things being or not being true (their true selves, real). So I didn't used to find this kind of answer helpful: too pointy-at-the-moon perhaps, insufficiently grounded possibly.

Not lying to oneself. In sync with things-as-they-are. With no hindrance in the mind.

If you have been there two years then you are still probably considered a "junior developer".  Next time you have a review with your boss, ask for a more active role.  You probably have a good understanding of how the code works.  Suffering is not about being bored, it is about wanting to do something else AND not doing anything about it.


text:
Where does the Buddha say that human life can have at most 50% happiness?
Ajahn Martin claims so in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsu3GEsoMT4 at 14:25. What's his source for this claim?

The Buddha say that human life can have at most 50% happiness?

That wasn't really what He meant. Basically He said that the reason why human realm is the most conducive to the cultivation of the Dhamma is because it's a realm where there's a mixed bag of misery and happiness, unlike realms where there's only exclusively just misery or just happiness.

"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a hell named 'Six Spheres of Contact.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable.
"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a heaven named 'Six Spheres of Contact.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable.
"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life." ~~ SN 35.135 ~~

And Ven. Thanissaro's note:

The message here is that in realms where sense objects are totally disagreeable or totally agreeable it is very difficult to practice the holy life, for in the former, one is too distracted by pain; in the latter, too distracted by pleasure.

What Buddha said was that there are many kinds of happiness (feeling). He acknowledges the happiness of the five senses but there are other happiness higher than that.
============
"Ananda, there are these five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Sounds cognizable via the ear... Aromas cognizable via the nose... Flavors cognizable via the tongue... Tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Now whatever pleasure or happiness arises in dependence on these five strands of sensuality, that is called sensual pleasure.Though some might say, 'That is the highest pleasure that beings experience,' I would not grant them that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure, more extreme & refined than that.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.than.html