text:
Infinity, eternity, countlessness in Buddhism
I'm interested in concepts of infinity, eternity, countlessness, etc. in Buddhist thought.
Could you please help me out with sources, both primary and secondary, where these concepts are used?
I know that there are countless beings, that the world existed forever, that Buddha's knowledge is limitless, that there are countless Buddhas, countless universes. But it is extremely hard to pin down exact scriptures where these concepts are elaborated and to find secondary sources where the issues of infinity and eternity are discussed.
Will be grateful for any help.
Thanks!

Would an answer which references Pali suttas with words/topics like "eternity" or "infinite time" interest you, or does the mahayana tag for this topic mean you'd prefer no Pali suttas?

https://terebess.hu/zen/szoto/vows.html

I would be very interested in Pali suttas, thank you!

Questions regarding eternity are considered to lack an answer:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/avyakrita
According to the sutta quoted below, Buddha refrained from answering that type of questions. The reason for this comes from the buddhist notion of anatta, also mentioned below. The concepts are a bit hard to untangle, but this is the gist of it:

How is it, Master Gotama, is the world eternal?”… as above …
“What, Master Gotama, is the cause and reason why, when wanderers of other sects are asked such questions, they give such answers as: ‘The world is eternal’ … or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ And what is the cause and reason why, when Master Gotama is asked such questions, he does not give such answers?”
“Vaccha, wanderers of other sects regard form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. They regard feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. Therefore, when the wanderers of other sects are asked such questions, they give such answers as: ‘The world is eternal’ … or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ But, Vaccha, the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, does not regard form as self … or self as in consciousness. Therefore, when the Tathagata is asked such questions, he does not give such answers.

https://suttacentral.net/sn44.8/en/bodhi

From the Pali suttas, the first that came to mind is "Assusutta (SN 15.3) -- Tears".
It's translated variously:

By Thanissaro Bhikkhu

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration.

By Ven. Sujato

Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning.

By Piya Tan:

this cycle of life and rebirth is without a knowable beginning

The word in question is anamataggoyaṃ about which, I don't know, there's a blog article here: Anamatagga

Translators’ renderings
Translators render it in the following ways:
• ‘The journeying-on as being without beginning and end’
  ☸ saṃsāraṃ anamataggato (Norman, Thī.v.496).
• ‘This saṃsāra is without discoverable beginning’
  ☸ anamataggoyaṃ bhikkhave saṃsāro (Bodhi, S.5.441).
Thus anamatagga potentially means:

endless
beginningless
without discoverable beginning

We will now show the problem of these terms, and we will show why we follow PED’s ‘whose beginning and end are alike unthinkable,’ and the commentary’s (ad S.2.178) aparicchinnapubbāparakoṭikoti attho (‘first and last point cannot be determined’).

The translation "without a knowable beginning" is close to my (trained in modern maths) definition/understanding of "infinite" though that may be just a coincidence -- i.e. "infinite" meaning something like "unbounded".

Another reference I think of is SN 44.7 and SN 44.8 (as mentioned in Erik's answer) -- the word translated "eternal" there is sasatta:

Master Gotama, is this right: ‘the world is eternal’?”
“kiṃ nu kho, bho gotama, sassato  loko”ti?

See for example Introduction to the Avyakata Samyutta for more about that.

Another sutta, which describes something not literally infinite but pretty large/small, is SN 56.48.

There are also definitions or metaphors of what a kalpa (i.e. an "(aeon)"), is, defined somewhere -- I'm not sure how that's important, though.


text:
Why I find it difficult to breathe when meditating, a lack of oxygen in my head? And how to overcome it?
I just get started three days ago. When meditating, I felt hard to breathe and even the lack of oxygen to the brain. I felt my bell and chess were stiff and this intervene me in getting enough oxygen.  My posture is right (I so sure about that). How do I overcome it? Should I keep going or find some changes?

what kind of meditation are you doing? and if you're doing breath meditation, what teaching are you following? a sutta? a book?

Make sure meditation is not the only activity you do daily. Make sure to spend some time for physical exercises, especially outdoor cardios like running, biking, hiking, etc. Try it to see if it helps fixing the problem.

This could happen if you change your breathing pattern hence cutting off oxygen. As long as you breathe naturally there will be no issues.

In meditation, you are not support to hold your breath but to test your lungs you could try hold your breath for 10 seconds. If you cough or get any discomfort then it is best to get in touch with a doctor.

When one fist starts meditating, one's mind is unused to the activity and may start to panic. When the mind panics, all sorts of weird threats and pains and bodily effects might appear; the mind is too attached to its own activity, and it starts to distort perception in order to give itself something to fuss over. This isn't about your breathing — breathing is something that will always 'just work', until the end of your days in this body — this is about your mind rushing around trying to fix things that aren't broken.
Relax, it will pass.
Remember, you're just sitting on a cushion, so the absolute worst that can happen is that you'll fall asleep and tip over like a character in a cartoon (and no, I've never seen that happen, so don't fret over that either). In a few days or weeks your mind will settle down and effects like this will go away.

It sounds like you are concentrating on too many things at once, friend.
Perfect posture in the beginning stages of any breathing exercises will encourage strain because it takes a lot of effort to maintain that posture. The energy you put into the posture and the meditation is taking energy away from the breath.
The reason why is because we only have so much conscious energy to focus in the beginning of any cultivation. So when a guide says to get comfortable, it means that you are going to exercise (whether it is the mind, heart or body). Being comfortable during practice also encourages more control of ourselves and better chances of gaining insight into the technique we are practising.
Meditation is not just action for the mind, it is applicable to the body and heart as well. Focus too much on one part of the whole will neglect what is left and lead to imbalance. Meditation is the harmony of discipline and relief.
Cultivate in harmony

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Animals: why did the Buddha remain silent?
I know there have been discussions about vegetarianism, but my question is not exactly that.
I know that:

The Buddha allowed eating meat for monks, if it is clear that the animal was not killed on purpose (Majjhima Nikaya 55.5), especially to provide the meal. The main premise behind the three-fold rule is to graciously accept what one receives in your bowl when going for alms round. This rule was meant and spoken to monks and nuns, not to lay people. “Beggars can’t be choosers” in modern terms. The Buddha's diet was more likely a vegetarian diet who ate meat "out of pity" on rare occasions.
On various occasions, the Buddha denounced the professions of fisherman and fish merchant as well as butcher. These professions are not part of a just livelihood (fifth of the eight stages of the Eightfold Path), nor is the trade in arms, intoxicants (alcohol) and the trafficking of living beings, human or animal. The ahimsa therefore covers for the laics the idea of not killing animals as well.
The Buddha banned the religious sacrifice of animals.

Knowing this, I don't understand why he didn't ban meat from the laics, or at least recommend a reduction in consumption?
We can clearly see that the Buddha considers meat consumption to be at least an indirect violation of the first precept of not killing, since he forbids monks to eat meat killed for them. Why does he allow meat that has not been directly killed for the monk? I have the impression that the Buddha considers that if the relationship of evil is not directly causal then it is less serious (that is why he allows the monk to eat meat that has not been directly killed for him). This can be understood: kamma is the intention and the one who eats meat doesn't intend to hurt an animal even if that's what he causes more or less directly by supporting the butcher's market.  But then, why not at least say to limit your meat intake?
When we see the horrors of the meat and dairy industry, I don't understand why the Buddha was silent on this subject. Even more if we consider that he was omniscient, so he saw all the suffering that this industry has inflicted, is inflicting, and will inflict in the future.
I understand all the less this silence precisely because, contrary to the Abrahamic religions, there is a form of equality between man and animal in Buddhism in the sense that each man can be reborn as an animal within samsara, and that each animal is surely a human being in the making. Animals are beings in their own right, not resources that man can dispose of as he pleases (Genesis 9:2-3).
I understand the logical reasoning that the Buddha must have had:

kamma is intention.
the one who eats meat has no intention of hurting a sentient being.
eating meat is still indirectly causing the death of the animal, so he forbids consumption in the first degree (if the animal was killed directly for us).

I understand that every action creates suffering, that you have to put an arbitrary limit somewhere so that you don't end up wondering how not to hurt the bacteria? But even if we eat meat that hasn't been killed directly for us, we are supporting a gigantic industry of suffering by doing so; in his compassion, wisdom, and possibly omniscience, I really don't understand his silence, he could have at least asked us to reduce our consumption, I don't know. I find it a bit easy to clear oneself because the animal was not slaughtered for us personally.
So:
Is the ethics of the dhamma incomplete?

This is the same as previous questions about vegetarianism, except that this one asks why the Buddha didn't require it of laypeople. We're told in the canon why he decided as he did for monks, but we're not told about lay people. So you're asking users to guess/speculate about the Buddha's motive for his decision or non-decision on this topic -- which I don't think is answerable, and/or it's too close to previous questions.

This is mere speculations from me, but turning down meat was probably not a viable option during buddhas lifetime, for the sake of survival. A layperson would likely run the risk of starvation without meat, and making vegetarianism a decree could possibly put a lot of peoples health at jeopardy.
Again, i am guessing now, but my point is that we can probably only understand a set of beliefs by understanding the context of that time. It could explain the "why" of buddhist ethics. (We could for instance compare this to the muslim decree on abstaining from eating pork, which at least partially is assumed to be for health reasons to my understanding).
You also seem to ask what ethics regarding vegetarianism should be in order to be consistent, which is a bit different than the question why.
Your argument regarding today's meat industry seems anachronistic, since the premises of meat production in those times was presumably a lot different than the large scale meat industrialization of our times.
In summary, the choice of eating meat is likely more feasible today, and therefore the ethical aspects of that choice becomes more salient, compared to buddhas time. Back then, it's possible that the ethical conundrum could be sufficiently solved by deriving karma from our intentions.
Applying this ethic in todays world, with the meat industry that goes with it may make a much stronger and convincing case for vegetarianism, compared to buddhas time.

At the time of the buddha, most lay people (ascetics or householders) were not buddhists at all. There were plenty of other teachings with their rituals and believes to follow.
The buddha was not interested in changing all lay people's life and less so managing them, especially for the lay people who are not even buddhist and just follow other religions (so they would give food to bikkhus because they either like it or because it is good in their religion). Since the buddha manages the bikkhus and ''a monk lives depending on a village or market town", it is up to the monks to accept or reject things given to them.
It is in the other religions that puthujjanas have created, where there are rules for lay people, and monks. And with the secular people, there is no monks at all, so they create rules just for lay people.
For the buddha killing animals in offerings made for him is never meritorious like he says in mn.055, and the other parts of their rituals, like mantras, chanting, dancing, burning fire and so on  like in mn92 , are useless for merit and for being enlightened, so he just changed the killing part, which the brahmins viewed has meritorious like the ''great sacrifice which was being prepared for brahman Uggatasarīra" in an7.44, when those lay people wanted to make merit with the buddha...
In the vinaya, and many more in mn.051, there are also 5 things that puthujjanas see as meritorious, but are in fact unmeritorious, and the bikkhus ''abstain'' from those

Five unmeritorious gifts are considered by the world to be meritorious
  4 : a gift of intoxicants, a gift for a festival, a gift of women, a
  gift of bulls, a gift of pictures.

For The lay people who like to feel buddhist, they would follow at least the 5 precepts and Killing animals is covered in that. In fact the 5 precepts is for anybody who wants a good birth and good present life like the buddha says to the brahmins
 and the population managed by the brahmins http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/vy/veludvaareyya_sutta.htm
The bikkhus do not control what food is put in their bowls, that's part of the whole ''being content'' with whatever they have, what is given to them, no choosing the people who give them stuff (unlike some bikkhus who tried to get nice food from a lay person and when some bikkhu denied this (the famous teenager arahant), they tried to get him excluded with the help from a bikkhuni) , or what they find in trashcans (like their robes).
but the bikkhus can choose to eat whatever they want inside their bowls, then they can throw what they dislike or the leftover, but in some special places.

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


text:
Can one meditate in the "anechoic" chamber?
It is not necessarily but I wonder what would happen if monk will meditate in  "anechoic" chamber?
The Orfield Labs room was recognized as the quietest in the world

If you stand in it for long enough, you start to hear your heartbeat.
A ringing in your ears becomes deafening. When you move, your bones make a grinding noise.
Eventually you lose your balance, because the absolute lack of reverberation sabotages your spatial awareness.
Here is link

There will be -20db silence in the room.
  So may we know how much db of silence (internally) is produced while mediating?

So will monk be able to meditate in this room or he will suffer the effect of it?
When we can hear heartbeat, bones grinding noise will he able to concentrate on breathing and could meditate without suffering?

Is there any reason to believe that skandhas are different in that chamber, compared to life outside of it?

Wouldn't be different and when enters in jhana.

I don't think it really matters. When I meditate, sometimes I hear a car passing or a bird singing or a child laughing in the distance; sometimes I hear a scrap of music in my head, dredged up from some distant memory; sometimes I hear the sound of my breathing, or my heart beating, or the creak of a joint as my body settles. These are just sounds, of no particular importance. They come and they go. For someone unpracticed in meditation that kind of silence would be disorienting, because the outer silence exposes all of their inner noise. But meditation reaches for inner quietness.

But meditation reaches for inner quietness. that's why I thought it is possible to meditate. There will be -20 db silence so may we need to know how much db silence is produced while meditation.

@Swapnil: inner quietness is a mental state, not a question of volume that's measure in decibels. it's a state in which we aren't reactive to disturbances of the mind, whether that means intrusive external noises or intrusive mental conditions brought on by the lack of external noise.

@@Ted Wrigley Thank you so much. Now I've got.

Yes in a video ajahn brahm said that ajahn chah went into such a room. I think he said there was nothing special according to ajahn Chah.
The video was some Q&A, but you can ask for more on his forum https://bswa.org/forum/

I'll ask Ajahn Brahm personally if ti is done by Ajahn Chah. Thank you so much.

I  never been  to anechoic chamber but I think that place is  favorable  for such deep meditation  because  when we meditate we become more aware of ourselves  some use body scan techniques  while meditating in that kind of meditation  if we are about  to hear our heartbeat  and blood flow  it'll  be easy to become  more aware of ourselves
usually  while meditating  we focus  our breath and if mind wanders we again  shift focus  to breath  and also we listen  to voices around  us become  more aware so in my opinion  I think it'll  be easy to  become aware in anechoic  chamber  this kind of chamber reminds me of Buddha caves in ajantha in india


text:
What would be the karmic result of worrying?
How come worrying is a bad karma ? Buddha stated that Having a confident mind gives a good rebirth ( in heaven etc.).
Most of the time, I worried about not able to complete a task within the desired time.
What would be the karmic effect of this worrying and any other worries ?

Worrying, because of its obsession with self (i.e., "I won't finish") is a form or wrong mindfulness. Right mindfulness attends to what will help oneself and others (e.g., "What effort and action would be of value now?").
But you ask about the effects of worrying. These are listed starting here:

AN10.114:9.1: Wrong mindfulness is a bad principle.  Right mindfulness is a good principle. And the many bad, unskillful qualities produced by wrong mindfulness are bad results.

The remedy for worrying is to become aware of and be mindful of those around us. In this way we can communicate and coordinate, building what is needed by shared effort rather than by fixating and worrying about "my job" or "my things". Worry is often tied up in Identity View. And the escape is not laziness or blissing out. The escape is right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right immersion.

Generally, worry is would be of and unwanted thing happening or a wanted thing not happening. A wanted thing generates craving and unwanted thing generates aversion. Dwelling on these states of mind continuously generates much negativity which makes you sad and depressed.
If you do not act out by word or deed on the frustration created due to worry this will not be weighty karma which can result in rebirth. Nevertheless, even if you do not act out this will create misery.
So if you seem to be having undue worry best is to take some time to meditate to alleviate it.

Strictly speaking from personnal experience :
Anxiety, sleepless nights, have greatly damaged my health during a decade. So worrying, stress, anxiety, are extremely harmful to the body (more than what is currently understood by allopathic medecine). I had to change life direction and resort to cultivating health and mental balance for a few years to restore my energy and health to an acceptable level.
On the mental level, worry and stress created very unlucky events for me. I noticed a pattern that when i feel stressed, worried, things tend to go south for me while when i don't worry things are easier.
So surprisingly, anxiety and worry are very negative karmas.

More worrying.
Worry is habitual, thus you should train in concentration to be able to catch it and destroy this defilement.
Think, 'Worry is useless. I must meditate to deal with worry. If my fear becomes true, then it is all the better to practice meditation right now so that I can deal with my fear if it is to happen.'


text:
Other than physical form which characteristics define a woman?
We know what a woman is. One can easily identify by her physical characteristics. Among the five aggregates form is only one of aspects which defines identity.
I want to know are there any other characteristics which define a women ?

I'm not sure that "form defines identity" is a very good summary of Buddhist doctrine.

The Pali scriptures refer to the 'faculty of femininity' ('itthindriya'), as follows:

Mendicants, there are these three faculties.What three? The faculties
  of femininity (itthindriya),
  masculinity (purisindriya) and life (jīvitindriya).
SN 48.22

Thus, it appears the biological aggregate/faculty of form may possibly be one way to define a "woman" (itthi). However, it appears such a biological definition is not necessarily "identity" ("jati").
SN 12.2 defines "identity" ("jati") as follows:

Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti
  abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho

Here, SN 12.2 (& also MN 98) explains "identity" ("jati") is produced (abhinibbatti) from how both physical & mental aggregates are manifested & used (khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo) and from what sense objects are sought & taken possession of (āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho).
Therefore, the following suttas AN 6.52 & AN 7.51 below describe other characteristics which define a woman. In other words, AN 6.52 & AN 7.51, below, provide descriptions the manifestation & use of aggregates ('faculties', 'gestures', 'manners', 'poise', 'desires', 'voice', 'charms', 'delight', 'excitement', 'attending outwardly', etc) and the seeking/taking possession of sense objects (such as 'a man', 'children', 'adornments', etc) which may possibly define the category of beings (sattanikāye) called "women".

Itthī kho, brāhmaṇa, purisādhippāyā alaṅkārūpavicārā puttādhiṭṭhānā
  asapattībhinivesā issariyapariyosānā ti
A man, O brahmin, is a woman’s aim, her quest is for adornments, her
  mainstay is sons, her desire is to be without a co-wife and her ideal
  is domination. (Nyanaponika)
A man, brahmin, is the aim of women; their quest is for adornments;
  sons are their support; they on intent on being without a rival; and
  their final goal is authority. (Bodhi)
Women have a man as their ambition. They’re preoccupied with
  adornments. They’re dedicated to their children. They insist on being
  without a co-wife. Their ultimate goal is authority. (Sujato)
AN 6.52

The Blessed One said: “A woman attends (manasi karoti) inwardly to her feminine
  faculties (itthindriya), 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 (nātivattati) her femininity.
AN 7.51

The above said, an enlightened bhikkhuni (Buddhist nun) that does not manifest/use/possess aggregates & sense objects in the above described ways appears to not have the identity (jati) of "a woman", as follows:

What does womanhood matter at all. When the mind is concentrated well.
  When knowledge flows on steadily. As one sees correctly into Dhamma.
One to whom it might occur, 'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man' Or 'I'm
  anything at all' — Is fit for Mara to address.
SN
  5.2

However, AN 7.51 does contain the phrase: "This is how a woman transcends her femininity. Evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, itthī itthattaṃ ativattati".
Therefore, it appears the 'faculty of femininity' ('itthindriya') or form aggregate may possibly generically define a "woman" however such "femininity" can be "transcended" ("ativattati") by not attending to it (na manasi karoti), by not manifesting it (na khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo) & by not identifying with it (anabhiratā).

And how does one become unbound?
Kathañca, bhikkhave, visaṃyogo hoti?
A woman doesn’t focus on her own femininity:
Itthī, bhikkhave, ajjhattaṃ itthindriyaṃ na manasi karoti—
her feminine moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways, feminine
  desires, feminine voice, and feminine adornment.
itthikuttaṃ itthākappaṃ itthividhaṃ itthicchandaṃ itthissaraṃ
  itthālaṅkāraṃ.
She isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it.
Sā tattha na rajjati, sā tatra nābhiramati.
So she doesn’t focus on the masculinity of others:
Sā tattha arattā tatra anabhiratā bahiddhā purisindriyaṃ na manasi
  karoti—
masculine moves, masculine appearance, masculine ways, masculine
  desires, masculine voice, and masculine adornment.
purisakuttaṃ purisākappaṃ purisavidhaṃ purisacchandaṃ purisassaraṃ
  purisālaṅkāraṃ.
She isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it.
Sā tattha na rajjati, tatra nābhiramati.
So she doesn’t desire to bond with another.
Sā tattha arattā tatra anabhiratā bahiddhā saṃyogaṃ nākaṅkhati.
Nor does she desire the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a
  bond.
Yañcassā saṃyogapaccayā uppajjati sukhaṃ somanassaṃ tañca nākaṅkhati.
Sentient beings who are not attached to their femininity are not bound
  to men.
Itthatte, bhikkhave, anabhiratā sattā purisesu visaṃyogaṃ gatā.
This is how a woman transcends her femininity.
Evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, itthī itthattaṃ ativattati.
AN 7.51

In the Sabbasava Sutta, Buddha described questions regarding identity as "inappropriate attention":

When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase.
...
"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


text:
How can I be happy at other's happiness?
How can I be happy at other's happiness ? How can I develop my willingness to see others' being happy ?
If I define a happiness level, scale of 0 to 100 about being happy at others' happiness, I think I'm at the 25-50 level. How can I promote it to 90-100 level ?
Sometimes, I do loving-kindness meditation. But I'm looking for some kind of understanding / wisdom about being happy ? How can this help in path to the enlightenment ?
Or Should I do loving-kindness meditation to gain that wisdom ?

If you have a child then when your child is happy you are automatically happy, and that happiness you experience is 100% without holding back, that is because your love and compassion for your child is unconditional.  The same type of happy feeling you must get if your thoughts are pure towards others happiness.  Jealousy is the reason why you cannot feel 100% happiness for others when they are happy. You need to develop loving kindness and compassion towards others what we call Metta meditation.
Every day 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the evening you can practice Metta meditation. Find a suitable place - calm environment in your house. Sit and close your eyes and stay focus by saying a prayer, if you are a Christian say a prayer few times and bring your attention without allowing your mind to wonder, then when your mind is calm you say, "May I be well, May I be happy, may I be joy, may I be safe, may I be peaceful", repeat this three times, then you say the same but to your immediate love ones, "May my closest family and friends be well, may my closest family and friends be happy...", etc., three times, ( you must concentrate and have feelings when you are saying these words),  after that you say three times, "May my normal family and friends be well, may my normal family and friends be happy...", etc., last you say three times, "May my enemies be well, may my enemies be happy...", etc., finally you say, "May all beings in this cosmos be well, may all beings in this cosmos be happy, ...", etc, three times, then you start all over again from the beginning. When you start doing this for few months, you will gradually develop your loving kindness and compassion, you may see changes especially if you have a pet at home it helps, because every living being you must have compassion and loving kindness, you will soon start to have compassion towards even a cockroach and will not want to harm, you let it live and have compassion for it's misfortune of being born as a cockroach.
You must also learn to let go of things that you normally attach to, and it is easy to start with material things, eg, you might like to wear only expensive brands of clothes, you will need to change the mindset of not making yourself important by wearing ordinary not so expensive clothes, this is a way to change your mindset which helps you to let go of things.
You can gradually let go of other things little by little, until you feel there is no competition between you and others, until this happens your jealousy will not disappear, that means your happiness level to go up you need to gradually get rid of your jealousy ( which arises due to ego). You can gradually increase the times of your Metta meditation.
Wisdom what is discussed in Buddha Dharma is not the same kind of wisdom what the west talks about.
May you be happy and well

OP: How can I be happy at other's happiness ? How can I develop my willingness to see others' being happy ?

One of the Brahmavihārās meditation subjects is Muditā which is to develop delight at other's well being. Muditā develops happiness at other's happiness.

OP: Sometimes, I do loving-kindness meditation. But I'm looking for some kind of understanding / wisdom about being happy ? How can this help in path to the enlightenment ?

Mettā breaks barriers, where one classifies, are people as me, dear, neutral and foe. This intern eliminates one's reaction with attachment and aversion which helps in the path.

OP: Or Should I do loving-kindness meditation to gain that wisdom ?

Yes.
You can practice the rest of the Brahmavihārās and Vipassanā which also helps gain wisdom. Vipassanā is specifically targeted at developing wisdom.


text:
What is the common understanding of all enlightened people?
There are many sutras and they are on different topics. Many people got enlightened by asking different sutras. Ven. Saripuththa thero got sothapanna by asking to cause and effect. Ven. Kondanna thero got sothapanna by asking to middle path and kamma. So, What is the core teaching of all the suttas ? What wisdom all they have in common ?
Edit: I think all people have some understanding of the world. Lord Buddha recognized those and help them to complete their understandigs. Ex: When Ven. Sariputhta thero hearing to the Cause and effect, He already have the understanding of Impermanance. (Because of that, He started to find the truth).

Nothing. Thank you for reading my answer.

As others have already answered, the four noble truths are the wisdom held in common by the teachings of the Buddha that lead to enlightenment. As the Buddha said in his first discourse,

"As long as my knowing and seeing how things are, was not quite purified in these twelve aspects, in these three phases of each of the four noble truths, I did not claim in the world with its gods, its Maras and high divinities, in this generation with its monks and brahmans, with its princes and men to have discovered the full awakening that is supreme.
(Nyanamoli, trans.)

Sariputta's attainment of sotapanna is a good example of how the four noble truths are both necessary and sufficient for enlightenment, as what you call cause and effect is actually a concise teaching on the truths, as the commentary relates:

ye dhammā hetuppabhavāti hetuppabhavā nāma pañcakkhandhā; tenassa dukkhasaccaṃ dasseti.
"Those dhammas that arise based on a cause": Those things that arise based on a cause are the five aggregates. By that he showed the truth of suffering to him.
tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āhāti tesaṃ hetu nāma samudayasaccaṃ; tañca tathāgato āhāti dasseti.
"The cause of them was told by the Tathagata": the cause of them is the truth of the origin of suffering. "And the Tathagata spoke that," he caused him to see.
tesañca yo nirodhoti tesaṃ ubhinnampi saccānaṃ yo appavattinirodho; tañca tathāgato āhāti attho. tenassa nirodhasaccaṃ dasseti.
"And the cessation of them": the cessation by non-manifestation of both those two truths - "And the Tathagata spoke that," is the meaning. By that he showed him the truth of cessation.
maggasaccaṃ panettha sarūpato adassitampi nayato dassitaṃ hoti, nirodhe hi vutte tassa sampāpako maggo vuttova hoti. atha vā tesañca yo nirodhoti ettha tesaṃ yo nirodho ca nirodhupāyo cāti evaṃ dvepi saccāni dassitāni hontīti.
But here the truth of the path is not explicitly shown; it is however shown implicitly. For when cessation was said, the path leading to it was also said. Either that or: "And the cessation of those" here means "the cessation of those and the means to cessation," thus the two truths are both shown.

Good evidence of the need to teach the four noble truths to attain enlightenment exists in the Dhānañjāni Sutta (MN 97), where Sariputta fails to teach the four noble truths and the listener goes to be reborn in the Brahma world. As the commentary says:

kālaṅkato ca sāriputtāti idaṃ bhagavā “tatrassa gantvā desehī”ti adhippāyena theramāha. theropi taṃkhaṇaṃyeva gantvā mahābrahmuno dhammaṃ desesi, tato paṭṭhāya cātuppadikaṃ gāthaṃ kathentopi catusaccavimuttaṃ nāma na kathesīti.
"And he has made an end to time [i.e. died], Sariputta": this the Blessed One said to the elder with the intention, "having gone there, teach him." And the elder, at that very moment having gone, taught the dhamma to the great brahma. From that moment on, even when teaching a four line verse, he never again taught anything devoid of the four truths.

It would be nice of you to translate the commentary you quoted, if you'd be willing.

I've much sympathy for this answer. The 4NT was about the first thing I learned about Buddhism, and I find it one of the most useful lessons or summaries. It was the 4NT though that I found especially difficult to share with my mum, so I guess I must hope it's possible that she may be enlighted without that explicit doctrine, I try to share other bits of doctrine with her sometimes like "no remorse".

Y'all should learn some basic Pali

The four noble truths is the absolute common ground.
Their meaning are not just subjects of discourse or semantics, but ultimately for investigation, or "discernment" and "pondering":

But then there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering. They don't study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate. They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma. Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare & happiness. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html

The common understanding of enlightened people is that all the trials and tribulations we experience in the world are products of the unbridled operation of the thinking mind, not features of the world itself. The thinking mind turns situations into problems, occurrences into worries, behaviors into offenses, and spirals through cycles of emotions and thoughts because what is doesn't agree with what it thinks should be. To paraphrase Dylan Thomas ("A Child's Christmas in Wales"), a lot of the activity of the human mind is like blowing 'a whistle to make the dogs bark to wake up the old man next door to make him beat on the wall with his stick to shake our picture off the wall,' and then complaining about the picture falling off the wall and worrying about how to fix it. If the mind is calmed so that we lose that mind-urge to blow the whistle in the first place, the world is a calm, peaceful, beautiful place; If the mind is agitated, those whistles get blown, and all the subsequent chaos ensues.

They all have seen the four noble truths in their own effort.

One answer might be this from verses 183 through 185 of the Dhammapada:

Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.
The best moral practice is patience and forbearance; "Nibbana is Supreme", said the Buddhas. A bhikkhu does not harm others; one who harms others is not a bhikkhu.
Not to revile, not to do any harm, to practise restraint according to the Fundamental Instructions for the bhikkhus, to be moderate in taking food, to dwell in a secluded place, to devote oneself to higher concentration - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

Or you might see What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?
Or maybe there's the three or the four dharma seals.
I think these would all be good answers but perhaps not not the ultimate answer -- because "what about compassion?" for example.
If you were to ask instead, "what is the common skill of all skilful people", then you might see that the question is senseless or difficult to answer or conditional -- if "what is skilful" depends on or varies with the circumstance, then maybe "what it's good or enlightened to understand" also varies.
Incidentally perhaps Buddhism doesn't talk much about being "enlightened", exactly -- instead the word used in the Pali suttas might be something more like "liberated".

They are unbound: they do mot cling to pleasure or push away pain.
They have perfect virtue: the five precepts if not the eight.
An anagami and arahant have perfect samadhi


text:
Where is the consciousness located? Cosmic Consciousness?
I recently became aware of questions regarding the location of consciousness. The argument put forward is that the consciousness is separate to the body. This is not something I considered before.
The first is conjecture by a Doctor Fenwick https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/think-well/201906/does-consciousness-exist-outside-the-brain
"Hence, in Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”
Fenwick is not a physicist, so I dredged the following link, the mind of wigners friend which supports the Fenwicks theory.
The second is based on quantum mechanics https://www.jstor.org/stable/23040667?read-now=1&seq=1
The key points central to the article are
"A. My body with its internal nervous system(explored to any future degree of physiological completeness) functions as a pure mechanism according to the laws of nature. Further more quantum mechanics is the ultimate basis of the mechanism.
B. I am aware that by incontrovertible direct evidence of knowledge (information) entering my consciousness."
The 3rd is offered as evidence of the first 2 links https://youtu.be/Uq8l4XVfgPA
Am I correct in thinking if all the information in the universe exists in a timeless dimension(membrane) of space and our brains only access a part of it, making us who we are. Can we access more information towards enlightenment maybe? or sixth senses? via meditation a bit like the Buddha may have done?
In particular can any one point out if there are any errors in the second link that might make its central argument incorrect?

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

"I am aware that by incontrovertible direct evidence of knowledge (information) entering my consciousness."
This sounds to me like the same kind of nonsense as, "I think therefore I am" -- which I reckon Buddhism might denounce as "inappropriate attention".
Am I correct in thinking if all the information in the universe exists in a timeless dimension(membrane) of space and our brains only access a part of it, making us who we are.
Part of Buddhist doctrine is that there is "sense-consciousness" -- see for example Vijñāna (Wikipedia).
So for example there is:

Visual organ (eye)
Visual object (a sight)
Visual consciousness
Contact of the above (i.e. of organ and object with consciousness)

And this is true of each of the senses.
And there's considered to be not only five but also a sixth sense:

Mental organ -- i.e. "mind"
Mental object -- e.g. "thought"
Plus consciousnesss and contact

So the mind is a sense organ which perceives mental objects.
So far as I know there's no especial "location" of the mind.
I guess I wouldn't say that the eye "filters" sights, as if there's a universal reservoir of unseen sight -- I reckon something isn't even a sight unless or except when it is seen.
Similarly, "information in the universe existing in a timeless dimension (membrane) of space" sounds to me like another theory that is "not even wrong".
Can we access more information towards enlightenment maybe? or sixth senses? via meditation a bit like the Buddha may have done?
I guess there's any number of possible theories or models of the world, but few of them are accurate and useful.
The Buddha formulated and taught some good theories or models -- called "the Dharma" or the Buddha-Dharma.

I am beginning to think there is some confusion, between different buddhist ideas. "The majority of Buddhist traditions, in contrast, assert that Vijnana (a person's consciousness) though evolving, exists as a continuum and is the mechanistic basis of what undergoes rebirth, rebecoming and redeath.[4][11][12] Some traditions assert that the rebirth occurs immediately, while others such as the Tibetan Buddhism posits an interim state wherein as many of 49 days pass between death and rebirth and this belief drives the local funerary rituals."

A persons consciousness is what is reborn according to Tibetan Buddhist belief. Is this an incorrect statement?

The "not even wrong" statement can be applied to many religious beliefs as well as many speculative scientific subjects. Are you you applying this to Tibetan Buddhist beliefs?

There are a lot of questions about 'rebirth' on this site. It was one of the first questions I asked (here).

I'm not at all qualified to explain the Tibetan belief/understanding and to confirm whether it's this or that. At best I know something of the Pali suttas.

Thank you very much for all the answers. I was just looking at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism) and there appears to be some unreconcilable differences between the different Buddhist teachings. I was told that Zen Buddhism does not accept rebirth/reincarnation, whereas Theravada Buddhism does, which is what I was hoping to discuss in relation to the OP

It was the idea of unperceived information (like unseen sights) 1) existing (having an existence) and 2) having a location  in a "timeless dimension of space" that seemed to me not even wrong -- that's just my opinion as someone who was taught a little Physics or rather Applied Mathematics (including quantum mechanics) some 35 years ago -- I'm not trying to criticise Tibetan Buddhism. The little I've read of Tibetan Buddhism makes a lot of sense to me, but wasn't about reincarnation and probably wouldn't have made sense if I didn't already know some of the doctrine of the suttas.

I think that the metaphysics of rebirth ("what is reborn and via what medium?") isn't well defined in the Early Buddhist Doctrines. Later schools tried to develop those theories, postulating models like the storehouse consciousness. I think of the topic as more or less useless, a distraction, a "thicket of views", a topic I won't investigate -- expecting a medium to exist reminds me of the Luminiferous aether.

Or more charitably -- I don't want to criticise people who understand the theory and find it useful -- it is a topic I am fairly ignorant of.

It is a new subject to me, I never before considered the consciousness to be external to the body/brain. It does seem from my simple viewpoint, that it would explain or make possible the concept of reincarnation, transmigration, telepathy (how does my wife know what I am thinking :) or what I am about to say) From the Physics point of view all  things are entangled to a certain extent. Even if it can only be proven between correlated entangled particles.

I gather Buddhist doctrine is that it's a mistake to view anything as "self". And perhaps that any theory at all about "self" is a mistake (see "inappropriate attention" linked above, and/or this topic). I never before considered the consciousness to be external to the body/brain Well like I said, one of the words that's translated "consciousness" is indeed associated with the five or six senses. how does my wife know what I am thinking Where is my wife after she died?

Individual self being only a small part of a universal interconnected consciousness. From this point of view is not better to view self as a part of a bigger consciousness? After death of the body what does happen to the consciousness, many religions have different theories on it. Which have little scientific backing, what I posted in the OP is relatively knew to me. The JSTOR paper based on physics, might be a little more than "not even wrong" it might be right or wrong, I can not find a flaw in the argument presented in it.

I don't understand why it ("part of a bigger consciousness") is meaningful, nor why it's better; and "universal interconnected consciousness" does not happen to remind me of any Buddhist doctrine -- except I heard that "Big Mind" is a Zen term of art -- see also this answer and the whole idea of learning from other people.

The Dalai Lama did say something about "not seeing myself as special, seeing myself as being like everyone else" -- that's the closest I've heard of something being "part of a bigger consciousness". Some theory of individual/personal consciousness at least seems to me worthwhile, e.g. so you don't step on other people's toes -- i.e. morality and compassion.

Tibetan Lamas, when they're reborn, seem to be re-educated in the conventional way -- i.e. they have teachers and a curriculum when they're children.

Yes I am aware that the Dalai Lama had teachers. I do not see how you can claim counter to what is written, that Tibetan Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation. I know some forms of Buddhism believe in reincarnation and some dont. There appears not to be a consensus of opinion across all Buddhists teachings.

I do not see how you can claim counter to what is written, that Tibetan Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation. I don't claim that. I claimed I don't thoroughly know/understand what the Tibetan doctrine of so-called reincarnation is -- i.e. what that means, exactly, and how it's useful. I do think the idea of non-existent things (unseen sights, unthought thoughts) existing and having a location might be a bit confused, not s strong argument or model -- which seemed to be the gist of Fenwick's conjecture and of item B in your summary of the jstor article.

Fenwicks ideas raised an interest, which then lead me to the JSTOR article which can be read online without creating an account. The JSTOR article is a well argued paper, it explores and discounts other alternatives, based on quantum mechanics. Fundamentally everything can be explained by quantum mechanics. All things are quantum fluctuations, which are all connected to a certain extent at the quantum level, via entanglement.

Different degrees of entanglement can not at the moment be demonstrated. Only clear correlations can be demonstrated, but the medium which entanglement information is passed via must also connect other particles to lesser degrees. Again you might say "not even wrong" as it can not be tested. But with all things in the physical world theories incorporating entanglement exist. Emergent gravity Eric Verlinde explains away dark matter, and shows an additional long range force, due to degrees of entanglement.

You asked "Where is  my wife after she has died" . Simple answer would be, every quantum particle of her body will eventually be recycled.  What we do in this life echoes into the future. If you add an external entangled consciousness, then things get a bit spooky :) I can not find any scientifically accepted way of proving this, so its not even wrong !

I don't care for quantum mechanical theories any more -- a mind game for Physicists with admittedly several practical applications (semiconductors) -- like imo Schrodinger's Cat might as well stay there in its hypothetical box, for all I care. I found Buddhism more useful to real life -- a better model for human existence and behaviour, interpersonal relationships -- more applicable, relevant. Simple answer would be, every quantum particle of her body will eventually be recycled She seems to exist in my mind, somewhat the same as before, not that I want to be solipsist.

The following link, explains different view points on rebirth in Buddhism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)#Ideas_of_rebirth . I think you will agree there is some disagreement, between different Buddhist beliefs.  Solipsism would appear to be something that does not agree with Buddhism, and is more like Schrodingers cat thought experiment.  The self is all that can be assumed to exist, or maybe is the cat dead or alive. ie a particle is in both states at the same time until it is measured, nothing else can be assumed.

The self is all that can be assumed to exist Well, no -- I think that's kind of contrary to Buddhist doctrine, which includes something along the lines of "there is no thing that is 'self'" but also "every theory about self is a mistake". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta And the little I know of Tibetan Buddhism, I think, includes that "self-cherishing" is a mistake.

Solipsism would appear to be something that does not agree with Buddhism Yes I'd typically associate it with selfishness. It might depend how you define "solipsism" though, e.g. whether you define it as "only self exists" or as "only mind exists". The latter might have some parallels with Buddhism, e.g. there is or was a yogacara ("mind only") school of Buddhism.

It is never a good idea to mix the speculations of the modern rationalists with buddhism. In buddhism, the location of consciousness is irrelevant. The thing to know about consciousness is this:

"He discerns consciousness, the origination of consciousness, the
  cessation of consciousness, the path of practice leading to the
  cessation of consciousness. He discerns the allure of consciousness,
  the drawback of consciousness, and the escape from consciousness.
"And what is consciousness? These six classes of consciousness:
  eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness.
  This is called consciousness. From the origination of name-&-form
  comes the origination of consciousness. From the cessation of
  name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness. And just this noble
  eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of
  consciousness, i.e., right view, right resolve, right speech, right
  action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration. The fact that pleasure & happiness arises in dependence
  on consciousness: that is the allure of consciousness. The fact that
  consciousness is inconstant, stressful, subject to change: that is the
  drawback of consciousness. The subduing of desire & passion for
  consciousness, the abandoning of desire & passion for consciousness:
  that is the escape from consciousness.
"For any brahmans or contemplatives who by directly knowing
  consciousness in this way, directly knowing the origination of
  consciousness in this way, directly knowing the cessation of
  consciousness in this way, directly knowing the path of practice
  leading to the cessation of consciousness in this way, directly
  knowing the allure of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the
  drawback of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the escape
  from consciousness in this way, are practicing for disenchantment —
  dispassion — cessation with regard to consciousness, they are
  practicing rightly. Those who are practicing rightly are firmly based
  in this doctrine & discipline. And any brahmans or contemplatives who
  by directly knowing consciousness in this way, directly knowing the
  origination of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the
  cessation of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of consciousness in this way,
  directly knowing the allure of consciousness in this way, directly
  knowing the drawback of consciousness in this way, directly knowing
  the escape from consciousness in this way, are — from disenchantment,
  dispassion, cessation, lack of clinging/sustenance with regard to
  consciousness — released, they are well-released. Those who are
  well-released are fully accomplished. And with those who are fully
  accomplished, there is no cycle for the sake of describing them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.057.than.html

Would it have been better to use the word spirit or self rather than consciousness. What is reborn/reincarnated in Theravada Buddhism.

How does cessation of consciousness meet with Tibetan Buddhist rebirth beliefs. A continuation of consciousness from one life to the next?

The experience of infinite consciousness is listed throughout the suttas. For example:

AN9.41:12.2: ‘Why don’t I, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite space, aware that “consciousness is infinite”, enter and remain in the dimension of infinite consciousness?’

Also note that identity view causes problems and should be relinquished:

MN64:5.2: Their heart is overcome and mired in identity view,

As for consciousness itself, we have several definitions, including:

MN43:4.3: “It’s called consciousness because it cognizes. It cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’.

The Buddha in particular emphasizes that it is a pitfall to entangle notions of self with consciousness.

MN148:10.13: If anyone says, ‘eye consciousness is self,’ that is not tenable.

Other disciplines such as physics will provide information about entanglement. Here we discuss Buddhism, which deals with the end of suffering, the cessation of identity view.

Thankyou very much all for the replies. Theravada Buddhism allows for reincarnation. If it is not the consciousness which is reincarnated in another body, what is? The Dalai Lama, the Indian girl in the video above, perhaps, all reincarnated ?????.  Reincarnated consciousness or self or ?????

Can we access more information towards enlightenment maybe? or sixth senses? via meditation a bit like the Buddha may have done?

Perhaps i'm rehashing what other users already has pointed out, but: Buddha did not "access information towards enlightenment". Using your choice of words, moving towards enlightenment is conversely a path of relinquishing information access (in short):
"Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

The Pali suttas say consciousness is caused (hetu) by the mind-body:

The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause and condition for the manifestation of the body aggregate.
Cattāro kho, bhikkhu, mahābhūtā hetu, cattāro mahābhūtā paccayo
  rūpakkhandhassa paññāpanāya.
Mind and body is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.
Nāmarūpaṃ hetu, nāmarūpaṃ paccayo viññāṇakkhandhassa paññāpanāyā ti.
SN 22.82

The Pali suttas say consciousness cannot arise without sense organs and other aggregates as a condition (paccaya):

It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this
  way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen
  consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no
  coming-into-play of consciousness.'
Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition
  in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in
  dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as
  eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear
  & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that
  arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as
  nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness.
  Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile
  sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified
  simply as intellect-consciousness.
MN 38

Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing
  away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of
  consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from
  fabrications,' that would be impossible.
SN 22.53

It follows Fenwick's scientific attempt to prove the existence of 'god' is wrong according to Buddhism.

Fenwick does not try to prove the existence of god. What he is suggesting is that the consciousness/soul, however you describe it exists independently of the body. If this is the case then it might cast some light on reincarnation, which I understand is a belief in Theravada buddhism

Reincarnation is not a belief in original Buddhism

Am I correct in thinking that Buddhism originates from Hinduism which does believe in reincarnation? Am I also correct in thinking some forms of Buddhism do believe in reincarnation? Do Buddhists still diagree ref The Cosmic self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism#Cosmic_Self_declared_non-existent ?

Thankyou very much all for the answers?

Before Buddhism, the main religion was called Brahmanism. Hinduism probably evolved out of Buddhism. In the Pali suttas, there appear to be basically no discussions between the Buddha & the Brahmins about reincarnation. It seems the Brahmins believed in a "heaven" or "other world". Regards

am I correct in thinking Buddhism is dated circa 500BC, and Hinduism goes back a undefined time but may be in the region of 3000BC. I have never found a date for Hinduisms origins.

"Consciousness is caused by mind and body" "consciousness cannot arise without sense organs and other aggregates as a condition" Sight can not arise without an eye/sense organ, sense organConsciousness can not arise without a brain

Some people think that consciousness is like a non-local(is everywhere) radiation and the brain is like an antenna fascilitating the arising of perception locally.
The way to criticize this is asking just on what basis the non-local phenomena can be said to exist if they aren't perceived locally.
This is impossible to do.
The way Einstein explained it is that if observer A is moving in the direction of electromagnetic emission, he is moving towards the incoming radiation and will eventually upon contact perceive the visible which was emitted. He will perceive it before the Observer B who is stationary, not moving towards the emission source of the visible light and the contact for this person will occur later.
EG; When a stationary observer B perceives an occurence of contact, here perceiving two lightning strikes, one to the front and another to the rear of a fast moving train, sumultaneously striking front and rear; the observer A being inside the moving train, moving towards what is in front, away from the rear, will inevitably perceive the occurence of lightning strikes consequtively, first upon contact with the emission from the front and later the contact with the light from the rear, the occurence of perception of the two lightnings isn't simultaneous as is for observer A.
Observer A and observer B would not be able to agree on whether the lightnings struck simultaneously or consequently. Here are essentially two different worlds, one where the lightning struck simultaneously and another where time passed between the first and the second discharge.
Occurence is only a local perspective. Without an observer there is no occurence to speak of.
We can only talk of a world in as far as it is conceived and perceived.
Ie; the eye is of the world, the eye conceives and perceives the world. That which in the world which conceives and perceives the world is called the world, there is no world outside of that in the world which conceives and perceives the world.
Occurence of observation requires a world wherein the observer exists and wherein the observing occurs. The existence of the world requires the occurence of contact in the world which begets perception.
In other words the existence of a world depends on the occurence of it's observation and it's observation depends on the existence of the world.
In other words the existence of matter depends on consciousness whilst consciousness depends on the existence of matter.
Therefore speaking of a non local existence of anything which isn't locally conceived and perceived,is unwarranted.
Buddha says consciousness has formations as a requisite condition and formations have consciousness as a requisite condition. A supports B, B supports A, thus come about a structure; as if two reeds were placed supporting each other, a supports b and b supporting a, thus forming a structure and in the context of a structure the two reeds are spoken of as one another's respective requisites and elements fascilitating the occurence of 'a structure'.
If one takes away one reed, the structure collapses, ceases to exist. There is then no structure to speak of and no requisites for it's occurence to speak of. Similarly was one to remove a dependently arisen element the whole context of dependently arisen phenomena collapses with no elements to speak of.
Here the seen, the heard, the felt, the smelled, the tasted and the cognized is the structure complete with it's inferable supporting conditions and elements.
The whole world in it's entirety is conceived locally by this or that being but because all locations are conceived locally it is effectively non local. This is how there can be instanteneous transmission of information between two points in space (faster than the speed of causality [speed of "light"] would allow), that is because both points are conveived  locally in as far as space element itself is a local conception of this or that being.
Is also why you can get seemingly magical superpowers by sufficiently integrating a proper understanding of phenomena, their occurence and interplay.

This article claims a 6 sigma proof that consciousness is external to the body. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235773843_Crossing_the_Threshold_Non_local_Consciousness_and_the_Burden_of_Proof If this paper is correct then some of the beliefs on this forum might be wrong ref re birth.

You are asking about making a delineation of a delineation: 'where exactly, within experience, is consciousness present, where is it not, where is the line that separates the two?'.
Answering in QM terms, here is a paper that demonstrates that inanimate objects make choices.. In other words, that the delineation of 'life as at least a cell, or life as at least a virus', is limited and flawed.
Life (access to choice - consciousness), it is all that is impermanent (anicca), unsatisfactory (dukkha), and not-self (anatta).. in other words, all conditioned experience - rock or sage.
Nibbana, not impermanent, not unsatisfactory, and not-self, is beyond that.

I guess the release from rebirths with the ultimate goal of reaching nervana, might have been what I was asking about. ie what undergoes the rebirth. I had assumed it was consciousness, from what I had read and been told. Clearly many buddhists believe rebirth is wrong, and others accept it as fact. I have been thinking reaching nervana was when you no longer had the desire to be reborn.


text:
How to deal with insults?
As I am going deep into my meditations of Vipassana and Zazen I am also going deep in my subconscious mind. Some long-forgotten painful memories of insult surface up. As I look now with a different vantage point I understand that my own Karma, my own Ego, and my own behavior was also responsible for me getting insulted. So as the memories surface I say 'forgiveness and loving-kindness', also I try to watch the painful memories without attachment and without the anger, but this is all on the surface level or at the level of mind. Deep within I am hurt and I want to move away from them and go deep in meditation.
I want to ask how to deal with memories of past insulting behavior by others towards me?

How to deal with insults?
There's a canonical answer here -- Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2)

In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahman. It's all yours.
Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It's all yours. It's all yours.

I think that's great and maybe needs no explanation.
To try to explain it anyway, though, I think that means you deal with them by not partaking with them, not sharing them, maybe by seeing them as owned by (intended by, the kamma of) the person who produces them.
Possibly that's not the same as denying them, though:

Because it can be good to learn from criticism?
Because the Zen story Is That So? shows the master acting on reality and doing what's necessary even when he doesn't necessarily agree with the accusation?

I want to ask how to deal with memories of past insulting behavior by others towards me?
Memories of trauma can be difficult, in an extreme they lead to cases like PTSD

In the typical case, the individual with PTSD persistently avoids trauma-related thoughts and emotions, and discussion of the traumatic event, and may even have amnesia of the event.[citation needed] However, the event is commonly relived by the individual through intrusive, recurrent recollections, [etc.]

I guess stressful experiences are memorable, perhaps for evolutionary/survival (i.e. biological) reasons.
One therapy is to maintain mindfulness of the present -- e.g. breathing, meditating, whatever your object of concentration is, or whatever your other senses can be conscious of -- to learn that "in reality" the past is past and you are not being insulted any more.
Aside from that there are a few aspects of Buddhist doctrine that are useful in most circumstances:

Four noble truths -- suffering is a result of craving for something to be other than as it is

Anatta, non-self -- instead of "me and mine" you have the view that "there was that person, with some experience, some feelings", but all transient

Dependent arising -- you said, "my own behavior was also responsible for me getting insulted", but now the circumstances are different, you're not behaving like that any more

Morality -- maybe try to not behave like a person who people would want to insult

Good-will etc. -- see the first 6 or so verses of the Dhammapada ...

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

... and maybe doctrine about the brahmaviharas for further details.

Thankyou so much for such a detailed answer.

Here we have a prime example of how attachment can lead to dukha (suffering).
In this instance, you are attached to a certain self-image, and insulting behavior by in others is attacking that image.
If you can bear in mind that we live in an a world of delusion,  of impermanence, and if you are able to be more flexible in terms of your image of yourself, then any insults should not upset you as much.
Attachment, whether to objects or to situations, is probably the most insidious factor in our ego-driven lives.  Unfortunately, it's also hard to give up.  But give it a try -- and good luck!

Well it's a good thing to be insulted. Why? Because it basically wears off the bad Karma that you accumulated in the past by insulting others. When those thoughts of insults appear in you, imagine that the same insults you recieved; were earlier done by you towards someone else in a previous birth. The person who is insulting you is a great person as he accumulates bad kamma himself while helping you wear out your bad kamma, thus nearing you towards liberation.
This is one way of thinking which does not lead to attachment or aversion.


text:
Is there any meditation technique to be aware of what you hear?
I have observed that while meditating if I turn my awareness from breath to 'what I am hearing' I have a heightened sense of present moment awareness. If I listen mindfully to what I am hearing the mind invariably comes in present moment. As the hearing can only happen in present moment. Also, I see that there are foreground noises and constant background hum, like a low-frequency sound in the background.
I want to ask is there any meditation technique in Vajrayana or any other Buddhist tradition to remain aware of the hearing and transcend the sense spheres thereby? If yes, what is it and how to practice it?

Yeah, you could probably make that happen.  What you’re looking for is a sense sensation that has some stability.  Visually, you would use something like a kasina, but I see no reason why a sound kasina couldn’t also work provided that you’re diligent about it.  As to what this sound kasina would be made up of, you’d want something that was consistently present.  A dripping faucet would probably work, but I’d be more inclined to use something like that background hum you were talking about.  You could also plug your ears and listen to the rushing sound of your blood in your ears.
Remember though, the whole point of a kasina is to generate a counterpoint sign.  When that arises, you would abandon whatever sound you were working with.


text:
How do I let go the ownership of the mind?
If someone offense me on physical things like "You are not beautiful, You are poor, You are not smart", I can bear it. Actually I don't care much.
But, If someone offense me on my thoughts like "You are not kind, You are greedy", It's hard to bear. Sometimes, I got aversion.
How can I overcome this ?
I asked a related question here.

How Am I not the owner of the mind?

What's the difference between "you're not kind, you're greedy", and "the mind reacted from non-kindness and greed as its condition"? Can you see any difference in both perspectives? Maybe if you analyze and investigate between these two kinds of views, you might be able to find something useful for you dilemma. Kind regards!

Keep establishing perception of non-self. When 'i am' doesn't occur, then 'i am good/bad' doesn't occur. It occurs due to frequent giving of inappropriate attention. If it wasn't occuring you would not make an evaluation 'another said this about me and it is a cause for sadness' or 'i am bad because of this, as in i prefer he didn't say these disagreeable things'. You would know that this is just some ignorant speech of ignorant people and feel compassion for their predicament.

This is due to subtle Upadana. (clinging)
There are three kinds of clinging.
-Kama Upadana (it seems you have less of this)
-Dithi upadana
-Atta upadana. (perhaps this is your problem)
-Silabbatha Upadana
upādāna:
Clinging; attachment; sustenance for becoming and birth — attachment to sensuality, to views, to precepts and practices, and to theories of the self.
The way to eliminate Upadana is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. It is a gradual training of Sila (virtues), Samadhi (concentration) and Panna (wisdom).

There are four types of clinging; clinging to sensuality, clinging to rites and observances, clinging to views and clinging to the doctrine of a self.

Just develop clarity around this question. Just this analysis displaces the activity responsible for this and any other view concerning the ownership of the mind. It's that simple.


text:
How would be the world if there is no suffering?
Imagine a world (a planet with humans) without suffering that the people in there are always happy,nothing to worry about.What would be the characteristics of that world ?
At least,Can we define the characteristics of that perfect world ?
Edit: I got this question by listening to Dhamma on Eight Worldly Conditions (Ashta Loka Dharma). Either good or bad,every person have to experience profits,losses,praises,insulting ..etc.It is equal to a person in a heaven and also in a lower realm. If world have only 4 rules (only profits, praises ....),Would it be perfect ?

If there are only enlightened people, there is no suffering for sure, Are there another way ? (A world with no suffering for non enlightened people)

In pali texts world in and by itself is explained to be 'suffering', not as a verb 'the world is in a state of distress' or 'suffering is experienced in the world' but 'the world is suffering' as a noun, what is called world that is also called suffering, suffering isn't one thing and the world another. You can't having drawn a distinction separate the two as to have one without the other.

Many people get this wrong. Thinking that some existant phenomena isn't stressful under certain conditions is what prompts the clinging to the world. They think 'if there is no attachment then there is an existance without suffering' but existence itself is foul, compared to excrement, existence itself is not approved of, not even the shortest spell of existence is approved of by the Lord, not even for as long as a snap of the fingers.

Good question.
Suffering should be fully comprehended.
What exactly is the definition of suffering?
Is been poor suffering?
Will your suffering be eliminated if you become rich?
We all know about this kind of suffering.
What Buddha taught was more profound than that.
It is not easy to comprehend.
Buddha taught three kinds of suffering.
Dukkhadukkha
Viparinama Dukka
Samsara Dukkha
Only Buddha taught Samsara Dukkha.

Loss is suffering in the world, painful feelings and the parting with what is dear is suffering in the world, these are sufferings in a qualified sense.  The flaw of impermanence is associated with the fleeting, that inevitable parting, the unreliability of conditioned phenomena, that is a characteristic of what is 'a suffering' in a definitive sense. Non arising of that which is ill, where neither this world nor another, just this is the cessation of stress.

Dukkhataa, an abstract noun denoting "suffering" in the most general sense.
1.Dukkha-dukkhataa, the actual feeling of physical or mental pain or anguish.
2.Sankhaara-dukkhataa, the suffering produced by all "conditioned phenomena" 3. Viparinaama-dukkhataa, the suffering associated with pleasant bodily and mental feelings: "because they are the cause for the arising of pain when they change"

These are the three which Sarath points out.

To understand a world empty of suffering, the Shorter Discourse on Emptiness might help. MN121 describes a discussion the Buddha once had with Ananda:

MN121:3.3: ‘Ānanda, these days I usually practice the meditation on emptiness.’

The sutta starts with noting the present and shared emptiness:

MN121:4.1: Consider this stilt longhouse of Migāra’s mother. It’s empty of elephants, cows, horses, and mares;  of gold and money; and of gatherings of men and women.  There is only this that is not emptiness, namely, the oneness dependent on the mendicant Saṅgha.

The Buddha continues with deeper and deeper stages of the meditation on emptiness.

MN121:4.3: In the same way, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the village and the perception of people—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of wilderness.

And at very end of the sutta on emptiness, we see a confirmation of the inevitable stress associated with living:

MN121:12.3: There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’

In a world without suffering, if we step on a thorn, there will still be the stress of the thorn piercing the foot.

The universe is subjected to three marks of existence, hence there cannot be anywhere in the universe which there is no suffering.
For a perfect world to exist you need to have:

permanence
satisfaction and lack of pain
controlling and permanent self


text:
Kesi Sutta, what is an untamable person?

"It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life.
  But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to
  a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata
  doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally
  destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't
  regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing."

AN 4.111
Just so, is this subtle language? What then is an untamable person? Is it a being like an animal, who does not have access to Dhamma, or is it a being who has access to it, but disregards it out of hand, or something in between!?

Is like Devadatta

Ven. Sujato translates it, "a person in training" (which makes sense in the context).
The word in question is purisadamma.
Piya Tan explains it here as follows:

1.3.3.2 What is purisa? The usual translation for purisa is “person,” usually a “man.” And the usual
  word for “individual” is purisa,puggala or simply puggala, as if famously used in reference to “the pairs of
  persons, the 8 individuals” (purisa,yugāni aṭṭha,purisa.puggalā) in the recollection of the noble community (saṅghânussati).
Here, purisa refers to a “person,” which loosely refers to a being with some capacity for thought and
  will (in the sense of personal action).
The Buddha has tamed animal persons (tiracchāna,purisa), such as the naga-rajah Apalāla, Cūḷodara, Mahodara, Aggi,sikha, Dhūma,sikha, the naga-rajah Āravāla, and the elephant Dhana,pālaka.
He has tamed human persons (manussa,purisa), such as the young nirgrantha Saccaka, the brahmin
  youth Ambaṭṭha, Pokkhara,sāti, Soṇa,daṇa, and Kūṭa,danta.
He has tamed non-human persons (amanussa,purisa), such as the yakshas Āḷavaka, Sūci,loma and
  Khara,loma, and Sakra, the lord of the devas.
1.3.3.3 What is damma? The word damma (Skt damya)
  is an adjective, the gerundive of dameti
  (causative: Skt dāmyati), “to bring into the house, to domesticate; to tame, convert; to be restrained;
  especially with reference to tamable animals; figuratively, to humans to be tamed or converted.” Technically, damma means “to be tamed, or should be tamed,” but the context here clearly refers to the
  capacity or readiness of a being or person for taming—hence, “tamable.”
“Tamable persons” (purisa,damma), that is, those to be trained, according to the Sutta are of 4 kinds:
  (1) those who are trained with gentleness; [1.3.4.1]
  (2) those who are trained with harshness; [1.3.4.2]
  (3) those who are trained both ways (with gentleness and with harshness); [1.3.4.3] and
  (4) those who cannot be trained at all: the untamable. [1.3.5]

Thanks, that was quick :) just as an afterthought, that Piya Tan format of suttas, is there a suttacentral style repository for the lot of them one can hit up?

Yes look at the bottom of the right-hand column of http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/ -- for example the link to AN 4.111 is on http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/sutta-titles-2/anguttara-nikaya -- unfortunately the link there i.e. http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/15.7-Buddhanussati-piya.pdf is often out of date ("Page not found") -- so to find it then I use a Google search of the site, like https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.themindingcentre.org+kesi+sutta


text:
Are there any similar characteristics between Nama and Rupa?
We can define location, size, velocity for rupa. Can we define these for Nama ?
Can we say "a moving mind", "mind is located inside the body", "after the death, mind leaves the body and step into a new body" ?
Can we imagine "How mind looks like" ?

What is the location, size and velocity of form derived from form which is included in Form?

The best thing to remember the fire simile.
The campfire become a grass fire. the grass fire becomes a bush fire. The bushfire becomes the housefire.
Here the fire is similar to the consciousness (Nama). What fire depends on (grass etc) are the Rupa.
When we take the fire with say grass it is called Namarupa.

We can define location, size, velocity for rupa. Can we define these for Nama ?

No, you can't do that in the same way. However, they are all in the difference between Nama such as wholesome, unwholesome, man's mind, girl's mind, etc.

Can we say "a moving mind", "mind is located inside the body", "after the death, mind leaves the body and step into a new body" ?

Both Nāma and Rūpa completely vanish where they arise immediately. Nothing move. However, there are many vanished origins can cause new Nāma Rūpa in the future.

Can we imagine "How mind looks like" ?

Yes, you can imagine of mind. However, no one can see mind by their eyes because mind has no color.
So, if you want to imagine about mind, you need to learn Abhidhamma and meditate Jhāna. If you attain Jhana, you can understand your mind easily. And you can learn everything easily because of Jhana. Jhana can develop  your mind faster and brighter more than whenever you have been before  And by the trick in Tipitaka, especially Abhidhamma, Nāma and Rūpa will clearly appear for you.

The answer to your question is yes, there are three characteristics they have in common they are illness, are impremanent and are not self. There are more; they should not occur, they should not be, and so on with inferable from the first 3; they do not belong to a self, are empty of a self, are unpleasant, so forth and so on inferring from the first 3.
You seem to assume that the word 'body' as is used in conventional language & terms in the world has the same meaning the word Rupa as is used throughout the Sutta across the contexts, in particular the context of Dependent Orgigination. This isn't the case and a quick glance at the Vibhanga section on Form will make this obvious.
I suspect you have come to hold an assumption that namarupa means mind & body, wherein body is as is spoken of in conventional terms of newtonian physics.
Buddha spoke of that body you seem to speak of, which rots away, flesh & bones, in conventional terms, also referred to in pali as 'Kaya' but he also spoke of 'Rupa' in the context of 'namarupa' in Dependent Origination, that word is hard to see the meaning of.

OP: We can define location, size, velocity for rupa. Can we define these for Nama ?

Location, size, velocity, shape, time, ... all these are conventional. According to the ultimate truth neither rūpa nor nāma has those characteristics.

OP: Can we say "a moving mind", "mind is located inside the body", "after the death, mind leaves the body and step into a new body" ?

No, neither rūpa nor nāma can move. They arise, exist, and cease then and there. New rūpa may arise at the same place or nearby. They will also exist, and cease then and there. This is called "Deshāntarotpatti".

OP: Can we imagine "How mind looks like" ?

No one can see mind with eye consciousness. So you can't imagine "How mind looks like". But you can understand the behaviour and characteristics of your mind.

OP: Are there any similar characteristics between Nama and Rupa?

To answer your original question above, yes, there are similar characteristics between rūpa and nāma. Both rūpa and nāma are conditioned. All the conditioned things share three common characteristics. They are anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering), and anatta (not-self).

OP: We can define location, size, velocity for rupa. Can we define these for Nama ?

No.

OP: "after the death, mind leaves the body and step into a new body" ?

This arises and passes. When one state passes away the next state arises. At death when the last though moment passes the next the rebirth linking though moment arises in another moment. Distance is immaterial.


text:
Street art interpretation in predominantly Buddhist country
I have wanted to ask someone who is not familiar with a Buddhist culture how they might interpret this street art, which is generating controversy in a predominantly Buddhist country.

Anti-religious propaganda..., not much more to be seen astry for nourishment of polarisation. Communists/liberalist/materialist who try to convince people out of faith toward Dana, Sila, good, as save protection but after trade in the world.

Very bad kamma by "speech" that devides people and use such foolish means against the Juwels. Nothing good to spread further, if one is wise or of a little faith toward good actions, good householder.

It is simply depicting coronavirus as a weapon of Mara (death) there is a person affected by the coronavirus and some people are trying to help that person. I am not sure of the background which seems like a flag. Then there is a video screen.

That's the flag of Myanmar.

What is the meaning of the computer screen? Perhaps the world is watching this unfolding via the internet? Perhaps suggesting that the virus is made in a laboratory?

I think it's real, some kind of permanent/physical fixture on the wall -- not part of the art: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IM2ZI.jpg

ROFL. How ironic we can misinterpret things!! Consciousness is an illusion. A thicket of the views.

Covid is attacking the world (represented by the globe/planet).
It's entering the world (like the virus enters a biological cell).
The world is suffering (represented by the crying face).
The doctors and nurses (white lab coats and masks) are pulling together (working/cooperating) to help pull the world away from death.
It looks like death by drowning, they don't appear to be winning at the moment.
The sea-weed-like tail and teeth on the virus make it look like a deep-sea fish. I'm not sure what the red eye is meant to symbolise, except it's "Breaking the fourth wall".
The flag is Myanmar's.
I don't know about "death" and/or "father time" there -- represented with a scythe, which is an agricultural tool for cutting long grass and wheat and so on -- that's western imagery/iconography, is it eastern too?
Giving it the same colour as a monk's robe in Myanmar -- i.e. coloured maroon -- it's that I guess which is the "controversy" you're talking about (in the west, Death's robe would normally be grey or black -- coincidentally about the colour of a Christian monk's cassock).
The figure's tall/straight back, and bowl, look a bit like a monk's also.
Perhaps it's being interpreted as a message that monks an/or Buddhism are spreading the disease somehow, and that modern medicine/medics are trying the save people?
Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_(personification) does seem to imply that the Grim Reaper is or was typically western rather than eastern iconography.
My guess is that the artist didn't intend to be anti-Buddhist, but did a bad job of translating the Grim Reaper. In the West it's depicted dressed (if it's dressed at all and not just a naked skeleton) in the robes of a Christian monk. I think that's not intended as an anti-Christian message, but comes from medieval times when it was intended to be seen and understood by monks -- in that context, "monks robes" were simply the ordinary clothing which they all (all monks) wore, so Death was wearing the robes of a departed Brother.
Maybe tactless or controversial of the artist, though, to depict that as a Buddhist instead.

Interesting analysis. Interesting how artist thinks.