text:
Referencing MN 121, how to focus on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite space?
Referencing MN 121

'...focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension
of infinite space...'

As I understand the perception of the dimension of space is the experience inside Jhana. Why did the Buddha tell Ananda to focus on oneness directly? Is this sutra meant for advanced practitioners who can focus on the infinite space?
My question is how to achieve this focus?

I don't relate to the formless realms as being jhanic states. They are simply the opposite of the core beliefs we hold about the world. If you consider a core belief to mean a mental idea that is perpetually practiced on a daily basis such that one takes for granted that belief, then your getting closer to what the formless realms are about.
The religious overlays alongside an air of mysticism can be quite helpful for certain people with regards to entering the formless states, but let's use this 'core belief' framework to look at the formless realms and in doing so demystify them as special attainments:
The first formless realm is called infinite space. This is a direct challenge to your belief that space is finite. Have you ever looked out at the night sky and felt a poignant sense of inferiority? It might feel like you're hitting up against a mental barrier, similar to a prisoner staring longingly through the bars of their prison cell. That is a direct challenge to your belief that space is finite, for there are two nominal things: you here, and finite space there. One cannot imagine infinite space, and as such a subtle sense of sadness ensues. Focussing on the oneness of these concepts can collapse the dualistic idea of you here perceiving finite space there. The belief that space is finite came about as one grows into this world, taking on concepts & views. It is a belief that is strengthened by knowledge.
Knowledge is an important factor that defines the second formless realm, infinite consciousness, for what happens to the world when we 'know' the objects as individual perceptions? Everything is fragmented into a maddening mandala of things; that knowing becomes finite. Infinite consciousness is the collapsing of all these individual perceptions. The six sense consciousnesses are no longer anchored to a perception or a cluster of perceptions and the result is boundless consciousness and the oneness dependant upon that perception (Yes, it's still a perception, which will become clear in the next paragraph)
Moving on, the mind is further challenged... "then there must be nothingness", to which one discovers that this too is yet another perception supported by the absence of what is not there. Having challenged this belief, the mind is disillusioned and enters periods where the very fundaments of the brains perceptual structure breaks apart. This is called neither perception nor non-perception. It is here where one discovers that boundless space and boundless consciousness were also perceptions; thus the entire perceptual framework wobbles and buckles under the scrutiny of the wisdom eye.
But bare this in mind: if you have psychological and emotional hang ups, (fetters 4 & 5) this stuff will keep yanking you back into the perceptual world until you figure out how to work through them. Therefore, you will find a lot of formless realm practitioners are able to drop into the formless realms during meditation and revel about it to their peers, but in daily life they shout at their family members. There's a discontinuity between meditative awareness and real life situations brought about from the dissonance caused by the eroding away of the inner perceptual world. One should have there emotional stuff at least reasonably well put together before breaking apart your ability to perceive the conventional world, but regardless, it will be a little messy from time-to-time; nobody is perfect.
When neither perception nor non-perception stops happening, you have likely broken the 6th and 7th fetter, and one can no longer get into the formless realms simply because you've seen through those beliefs. MN 121 simply describes the progression of seeing and breaking these worldly beliefs.
The formless realms work in a kind of symbiosis to create a perceptual framework. They are simply a set of beliefs that the world gave you, and the brain gives further impetus to these beliefs, misinterpreting sensory information in a cyclic fashion, typically called samsara.
When you think of the word 'space', ask yourself what you mean by space. Visually it can only be defined by the distance between two or more objects, but we're not actually interested in a worldly interpretation; what is the perception of space? How is space 'known' in your experience?

The most standard view, I believe, would say that:

There is only this that is not emptiness, namely the oneness dependent
on the perception of earth.

which precedes the passage you quoted, refers to jhāna via the earth kasina. Why the usual jhāna formula would be omitted is not clear but all the prominent teachers of jhāna that I can think of teach that you must pass through the jhānas in order and so, in this case, you would have to go through 1-4 with the earth kasina (even if extremely quickly for an advanced practitioner) and then you would be able to enter the dimension of infinite space.


text:
Do we have to commit sins because of another's karma
I have a big question since my childhood and everyone I asked, failed to answer. Please help me.
Imagine that there are three men A, B and C.
A kills B and commit a sin in a previous bhava. Now A have the karma and C kills A in the next bhawa as a result of A's Karma.
My question is, does C make a new karma because of A's Karma.
Sorry for my bad english.
Have a good day ahead.

According to my understanding, when C kills A, C acts with intention rooted in delusion (moha) and hatred (dosa) and that act itself is/constitutes karma (intentional action), the results (phala) of that action will be bad if they ever ripen and produce their result.
As @Remyla pointed out, the workings of karma are said to be very complex and difficult to fathom and, as @ChrisW pointed out, they are typically not thought to be simple cases of a 1:1 returning of an action in the same way in a future life. So, the precise relationship between A killing B and C killing A is not clear but doesn't change the above.
Finally, my understanding is that one cannot be compelled definitively to take any actions by the actions of another. If that were the case, it would be impossible to escape from dukha by intentional action.
I am assuming we are not talking about accidental killing, but rather murder.

Read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswerable_questions
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma (Karma in Sanskrit)"

There are explanations of different kinds of action, different kinds of result, different kinds of kamma -- for example here:

Kamma
A Study Guide
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma?

It seems to me that C's killing A is "injurious" and therefore "dark" and therefore not "leading to the end of kamma" -- and so it is instead, as you asked, "making new kamma".

I'm not sure it's fair to say that it's "because of A's Karma".
I mean, perhaps A's kamma was part of it but it seems to me simplistic to say, "Oh it was all A's fault, C had nothing to do with it."
I guess that it was because of the kamma of A and C that they met at all; but then C had a choice (or intention) of their own, and also a predisposition based on their own kamma and training, i.e. to kill or not to kill.
And so it's not true that "we have to commit", which is what you're asking in the title.
I suspect there are societies or cultures, where the doctrine of "obligation" is assumed to be true -- for example, "I have to kill you, because your dad killed my dad", and so on -- but I think that's merely a social convention and belief, it's not some fundamental rule of the universe.
If I understand it right there's a section of the Bhagavad Gita where Arjuna is told (by the God) that he has an obligation, a duty, to kill others, because of his kamma e.g. because of his birth as a prince. In my opinion this is more or less completely contrary to Buddhist doctrine.
When I search for "predestination" for example I find doctrine like this:

Fundamentals of Buddhism: Kamma
... It is karma that explains the circumstances that living beings find themselves in.
Having said this much about the function of karma, let us look more closely at what karma is. Let us define karma. Maybe we can define karma best by first deciding what karma is not. It is quite often the case that we find people misunderstanding the idea of karma. This is particularly true in our daily casual use of the term. We find people saying that one cannot change one’s situation because of one’s karma. In this sense, karma becomes a sort of escape. It becomes similar to predestination or fatalism. This is emphatically not the correct understanding of karma. It is possible that this misunderstanding of karma has come about because of the popular idea that we have about luck and fate. It may be for this reason that our idea of karma has become overlaid in popular thought with the notion of predestination. Karma is not fate or predestination.
If karma is not fate or predestination, then what is it? Let us look at the term itself. Karma means action, means "to do". Immediately we have an indication that the real meaning of karma is not fate because karma is action. It is dynamic. But it is more than simply action because it is not mechanical action. It is not unconscious or involuntary action. It is intentional, conscious, deliberate, wilful action. How is it that this intentional, wilful action conditions or determines our situation?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Looking for Sutta reference for Mindfulness Meditation
I am looking for a sutra where the Buddha explains Mindfulness Meditation. Specifically, Mindfulness of body, Mindfulness of Thoughts, and Mindfulness of Feelings.

I wrote a mini book precisely about these three areas of Satipatthana alongside how to tap into the initial workings of the enlightenment factors. Unfortunately, it's far too long to add as an answer. I will try to locate the book and condense the relevant parts, but the book itself unified - its meant to be read as a whole.

@Max ok...if you can..please upload it somewhere from where I can downoad.

In the SN (samyutta nikaya) collection, the 47th chapter is exclusively on the topic of satipaṭṭhāna (establishing "mindfulness")
https://lucid24.org/sn/sn47/index.html
The first 20 suttas are especially important, and will give you much information you won't get from reading MN 10 (the sutta people almost always refer to for the topic of sati).
Depending on your experience level, if the first 20 suttas are not making sense, then I would recommend reading Thanissaro Bhikkhu's book "right mindfulness"
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/RightMindfulness/Contents.html
It will enlighten you on how some of the pieces in the path fit together, and how most people are teaching it wrong.

The Mahasatipathana Sutta treats this at a superficial level as do a number of others, but if you want an incredibly thorough dive into traditional mindfulness practice, Ven. Analyo's Satipatthana - The Direct Path to Realization is indispensable.  It covers both the sutta and commentarial references to the practice in almost exhaustive detail.

There isn't an definitive explanation of mindfulness, or how to do it. It is something you have to feel into yourself. All we can really do is talk or write around it.
In any case, I wasn’t able to find my book, which is somewhere on a pen drive. However, the rudiments of the book followed the principle scheme of developing a familiarity with the body and its context such that insight into cause and effect is seen. This too is known or discerned in the same way as the body placement to which disenchantment follows. Please understand that disenchantment isn’t disgust; it simply means one’s mind is no longer enchanted by form. This particular method is mentioned here in the Satipatthana Sutta:

“he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or
externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally
on the body in & of itself.”
"Furthermore, when walking, the monk
discerns, 'I am walking.' When standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.'
When sitting, he discerns, 'I am sitting.' When lying down, he
discerns, 'I am lying down.' Or however his body is disposed, that is
how he discerns it.

If one is astute and well versed in the other satipathanas, which might involve memorizing the sutta, then those satipatthanas will naturally come into play as the world around you changes, thus it becomes an intuitive interplay of insights and knowledges instead of a systematized and methodical-based set of tasks. This is critical, because the play of phenomena isn’t bound by rules, although it can be expressed in such a way, of which I’m persistently reminded of by my local council!
The key point is to feel into what is meant by know or discern. It is this ‘knowing’ or ‘discernment’ that one begins to tune into. One becomes familiar with what that sense of knowing is like for them. It is a knowing that is absent of thought and intellect, although some teachers will give a concession to the mind by using a labeling method – it keeps the mind busy, but these are just training wheels. In any case, when that knowing is firmly understood it becomes a type of concentration.
This is not the kind of concentration that you were taught by society. Society teaches an intensely focused concentration brought about by straining the mind and is usually coupled with longing, wanting and striving. That has its uses, but it is not helpful here. We are looking for a relaxed and open concentration, as if you were holding your attention very gently. Nothing is projected outward and nothing is grasped tightly inwards, but there is a non-intellectual understanding of both inner and outer, which later becomes ‘just this’.
The effort to know should be like balancing a stick vertically in your hand. If the stick were to fall away from you - which represents the projection of attention or strenuous effort - then you readjust your hand such that the effort to balance the stick is almost zero. Conversely, if the stick falls towards you - where too much attention has gone inwards - you readjust the effort until the effort is almost zero.
Zen Master Dogen’s interpretation might be that one takes a backward step from the incessant need to know on a cognitive level:

“You should therefore cease from practice based on intellectual
understanding, pursuing words and following after speech, and learn
the backward step that turns your light inwardly to illuminate your
self. Body and mind of themselves will drop away, and your original
face will be manifest. If you want to attain suchness you should
practice suchness without delay.”

In the Theravada tradition, one might understand this type of discernment or knowing as not giving your attention to the signs and features of your perceptions. It is barely a ‘doing’ of any sort, and that is how one ‘knows’ the placement of the body in its context. It’s so easily overlooked by many practitioners because it’s very boring to the mind, but if you can sit, walk, stand and lay down through this bordem, very interesting things will happen!
In this way, and with regular investigation, there will arise a sense of having both an inward and outward awareness at the very same time. The visual field may widen, giving a sense of spaciousness. One then knows the body and its context. Likewise, one does the same for standing, walking and lying down and in various situations in life.
After some time, a portion of your awareness will always be with the body and a portion with the context, because it has always been like that. In reality, it is not two things, or one thing, but it is ‘just this’. Having the attention placed like this, one then begins to notice how sensations arise in unison with the changing situations of the world. Your receptivity to the body and its environment becomes more sensitive.
It is that sensitivity that gives rise to an advanced form of mindfulness, hence… knowledge of cause and effect through situational awareness arising from knowing the body in its context. Thoughts and feelings are seen to occur in particular situations. This knowledge can dissolve certain cause and effect behaviours, for once you understand how you’re creating your world – and thus your suffering – you become disenchanted by your actions and certain behaviours can cease.
To condense all of that, we don’t have direct awareness. It is an indirect awareness concerned only with the world of the senses; eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind, which animate our internal perceptions giving solidity or form to their appearances. One only moves through these various perceptions of the mind, experiencing a substandard version of reality. Satipatthana widens this perspective such that we can see the bigger picture.

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


text:
What is meant by "a profound knowledge of words" in dhp 352?
dhp 352
A master is one who has let go
of all craving and clinging to the world;
who has seen
the truth beyond forms,
yet is possessed of
a profound knowledge of words.
Such a great being can be said
to have finished the task.
Sujato Translation, with pāḷi:
Rid of craving, free of grasping,
Vītataṇho anādāno,
expert in the interpretation of terms,
Niruttipadakovido;
knowing the correct
Akkharānaṁ sannipātaṁ,
structure and sequence of syllables,
Jaññā pubbāparāni ca;
they are said to be one who bears their final body,
Sa ve “antimasārīro,
one of great wisdom, a great person.
Mahāpañño mahāpuriso”ti vuccati.

The word in question is, niruttipatisambhida.

truth beyond forms...
yet ... a profound knowledge of words

is a feature of the enlightened mind: to have such a complete and perfect understanding of the principles by which the concepts and categories are delineated as to be free from them and see reality underlying said concepts and yet at the same time to be able to use them to construct precise verbal and conceptual models.

Thank you for your assistance.

niruttipadakovida
adj. skilled in language; (comm) accomplished in the grammar and the verse [nirutti + pada + kovida] ●
the first part of Dhp 352 is a coded way of saying they are an arahant, fully englightened.
The second part is saying they are also expert in language and communication skills, able to teach others and lead them to awakening.
This echoes other suttas in the canon where the Buddha praises those who are fully enlightened who also possess excellent teaching skills as the best and most praiseworthy of his disciples.

Thank you frankk. I don't see how you get to the words "communication" or "teach" from the text. I only see "master" and "knowledge", and get from that, possibly, deep understanding. Isn't it true that an arahant can't necessarily "teach" his wisdom?

I see the phrase "astute in expression" in one translation. Seems to fit nicely with your answer.

An arahant who is thoroughly familiar with the suttas, memorized the core teachings accurately, and can transmit accurate reproduction of the Buddha's words, is a lot more valuable to spreading Dharma widely than an arahant who is illiterate, has poor communication skills and has memorized very little of the Buddha's words.

When I was a small child, my father gave me an FM radio. It totally fascinated me that I could hear other people from far away. When I looked at the radio dial, it said 88 Mhz to 108 Mhz. Being the curious child I was, I wanted to know what could be beneath 88 Mhz and also above 108 Mhz. Later in life I developed somewhat of a hobby with the radio spectrum, which I accessed using radios of various types. It turns out the 88-108 Mhz was only a very small portion of the radio spectrum, which starts to taper off at 3 gigahertz, thus becoming part of the light spectrum. I've recently started studying short wave, as these signals bounce off the ionosphere,  giving them the ability to circumnavigate the globe. Recently, I've been listening to the new BBC short wave station setup for the Ukrainians on short wave 15735 kHz and 5875 kHz and various amateur radio enthusiasts.
With regard to the typical six sense experience, it seems to have a limited scope - like the FM radio - that can only receive a very small portion of the reality spectrum, and to become curious about the boundaries of that scope is to inquire into the nature of all things. When that task has been complete, the entire spectrum of reality is laid bare. I often try to relay this understanding in words, both verbally and written. Like Andriy says, it's a feature of the enlightened mind, and if one has a particular skill with words, then the expression will take that form. Here is a particular perspective that I often enjoy and one that I try to convey verbally in other creative ways to people...

The Equanimous Smile

Through a mind saturated with equanimity, one turns towards humanity
and harbours only love and understanding.
It is love because the equanimous mind does not lean to any extremes,
views, judgements or beliefs, thus giving rise to a clarity that is
not polluted by the conditions of the world. From that clarity, what
one sees in humanity is pure innocence in all behaviours. The people
of the world become like children playing in a sandpit, learning how
to grow out of materialistic immaturity.
It is an understanding because the equanimous mind sees the innocence
of the six-sense experience to be secondary to our primary nature, and
from this wider perspective the flesh experience is not taken too
seriously. As such, a new kind of smile arises - one that is not of
this world, but has an influence in the world.
That is understanding, and together they are love and understanding
born of equanimity.

As a medium-sized child I went behind the Iron Curtain, with my father. Now in a hotel room in Budapest after dark, there was a receiver, and when I tuned it to an amateur band I heard, "CQ".

@ChrisW - Isn't the radio a beautiful thing, so many connections, so many stories - ;-)

I appreciated the technology, physics and culture, in that I had borrowed the ARRL's 1972 Handbook from the library. But when I heard that, it seemed to me that all that was being used a carrier, for something in the human spirit: reaching out, seeking to harmonize, transcending geography and national boundaries, including "native language".

Thank you for your assistance.


text:
Does the Samajivina Sutta imply that a Buddhist should only marry another Buddhist?
Does the Samajivina Sutta imply that a Buddhist should only marry another Buddhist?
Or does it leave room for Buddhists to marry non-Buddhists?

The sutta implies that, to be happy, people should be virtuous and equally virtuous -- literally samasaddhā samasīlā samacāgā samapaññā -- equal faith/devotion, equal virtue, equal giving/generosity, equal intellect.

Perhaps this is idealistic, and from personal experience I rarely in fact met married couples who seemed to me to be perfectly in tune. And so this sutta may be a counsel of perfection, an ideal -- more of a direction ("aim for this and remember these virtues") than an accomplishment ("expect married life to be perfectly harmonious"). And marriages which have seemed to me to be more harmonious have often been older couples -- more mature -- sometimes a second marriage.

Perhaps the answer logically depends on what you mean by "Buddhist". I've seen it written on this site, that the term "Buddhist" is a modern invention. So instead the question might be asking, something like, whether both must be a dhamma-follower; and by extension, whether the only dhamma is the Buddha-dhamma, and maybe whether people can learn virtue and wisdom only from the Buddha.
Personally I like to hope that isn't so, to hope that non-Buddhists too can have happy lives: a bit like with Christianity, I like to think that "Christian charity" for example is a virtue practiced by non-Christians also.

See also this answer whose paraphrase of this sutta was that this affects whether people are "compatible".
Lastly the beginning of Piya Tan's introduction to this sutta says,

The importance of Nakula,pitā and Nakula,mātā are attested by the fact that the Nakula,pitā Vagga
opens the Khandha Saṁyutta (S 3:1-21). The Aṅguttara records that Nakula,pitā and Nakula,mātā are
declared by the Buddha to be the foremost of his lay disciples who show one another harmonious and
mutual trust (vissāsika) (A 1:26).1 The Aṅguttara Commentary says that they have been for 500 lives the
parents, for 500 lives the grandparents, and for 500 lives the uncles and aunts of the Buddha. As such,
when they first meet the Buddha in Bhesakalā Forest, they immediately call him “son” (AA 1:400, 457,
3:95 f).

Perhaps that implies the answer was "no" -- i.e. that Nakula's father and mother had been well-married for 1500 lives before the Buddha was born.
In the end I don't think it's the label that matters -- Buddhist or non-Buddhist -- what matters is the actuality, i.e. whether people are actually wise and kind, well-behaved, and so on.
But the dhamma is "well-expounded by the Blessed one" so perhaps it's difficult these days to imagine or talk about a world-view that isn't Buddhist.

Yes it is implied, in the word discernment (clarity of thought, clear knowing, wisdom, vijjā)
“If both husband & wife want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come, they should be in tune (with each other) in conviction, in tune in virtue, in tune in generosity, and in tune in discernment. Then they will see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come.”
Only two who understand the teachings well enough to have discernment can be truly "in tune" with one another. And possibly, only two such discerning people would even want to  "see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come."
Also, if the fact that they are both "Buddhist" is not important, I don't think the story has much to teach.
On a side note: This couple is not equal in attainment, but that probably doesn't matter because they are both accomplished enough in right view.


text:
what is the main difference between Yogachara and Madhyamaka?
According to Wikipedia, there are two main schools in Mahayana, Yogachara and Madhyamaka.
Could you tell me the main difference in doctrine between these two?

Can you please give us some kind of context for this question? Why are you comparing the two, what are you looking for that can't be found in Wikipedia etc


text:
“The āsava are the saṅkhāra that are encoded with ignorance [avijjā]”
Given that awakening is accomplished by the destruction of the āsava,
understanding what precisely the āsava are (and what they are not)
is a key to unraveling the mystery of the Buddha's teaching.
At the 13:29 mark of this talk,
2016-11-16: Ajahn Sucitto: Asava and Careful Attention
Ajahn Sucitto made the following claim:

The āsava are the saṅkhāra that are encoded with ignorance [avijjā]

IMHO, this simple statement is profound.
It places the āsava here:
paṭiloma-paṭiccasamuppāda:
1: avijjā
2: saṅkhāra <-- āsava
3: viññana
4: nama-rupa
5: salayatana
6: phassa
7: vedana
8: tanha
9: upadana
10: bhava
11: jati
12: jarāmaraṇa
By contrast, the destruction of the āsava is accomplished thusly ...
anuloma-paṭiccasamuppāda:
1: dukkha
2: saddha
3: pamojja
4: pīti
5: passaddhi
6: sukha
7: samadhi
8: yathabhutañanadassana
9: nibbida
10: viraga
11: vimutti
12: asavakkhaye ñana <-- āsava destruction => knowledge
I am 99% convinced that this interpretation is correct.
It just fits.
However, if possible, I would like some evidence from the suttas to corroborate this interpretation.
Does such evidence exist?
Ajahn Sucitto kindly responded to my request for information on this matter, thusly:

“'Avjijja paccaya sankhāra’ is the frequently reiterated beginning of
the paticcasamuppada (dependent origination) sequence. If you google
this you’ll find many sutta references. This means: ‘with ignorance as
a condition, formative energies arise’. These sankhara formulate
consciousness - the outward-looking intelligence that formulates data
in terms of labels and forms (nāma-rupa). The motivation behind this
formulating is to generate a substantial and enduring reality out of
them. This is the asava of ‘existence/becoming’ (bhava). There is also
the motivation towards stimulation; this is ‘sensuality’ (kāma).
Ignorance as the other of the three asava is the motivation to ignore
the others and just keep adding more proliferation to the mix. This
conclusion has arisen through prolonged study and practice."

Done. Please forgive my roughness and feel free to identify errors in my understanding directly (without subtlety). I do not suffer from self-absorption in the narrative and I do not cling to views, so there is no need to be subtle with me. ;)

Well said. Thanks.

I am interested in any answer you get. If I had the time, this is how I'd go looking for an answer (offered in case you or anyone else wants to do the work). 1. Load up the Digital Pali Reader. 2. Do a search for saṅkhār (no final letter, to allow for variations in grammar and compounds) -- this got me over 1.7k hits. 3. Save that out to a file and then do a search for āsava within that file (got 378 hits). Result: You are now easily able to find every occurrence of the two words in the same paragraph. Go look 'em up!

The concept of āsava is borrowed from Jainism. And we need to understand what it means in that context before we can understand it in Buddhism.
In Jainism, all actions create karma. This takes the form of an influx (āsava) of material (dravya) that sticks to the soul (jīva). Weighed down by this influx of material, the soul is forced to reincarnate over and over. Liberation in the Jain sense means stopping the influx and burning off one's existing karma through voluntary suffering.
Buddhists, by contrast, believed that only consciously willed (cetanā) actions were karmic and led to rebirth. They also rejected the idea of a soul (jīva). So the term āsava is only a loose fit for Buddhism.
When Buddhists talk about "cutting off the influxes" (āsava-kkhāya) as a synonym of awakening or liberation, they mean that one's sense of self has ceased or become submerged and as a result one has stopped acting on conscious will.
This is tantamount to saying that one who is awakened does not produce any karma. One who no longer makes karma, must eventually stop being reborn. It's often assumed that only one with little karma could be reborn in circumstances fortunate enough to achieve this: ergo, once one has cut off the influxes, one is unlikely to be reborn again.

Hi @Jayarava welcome back to the site, and thank you for answering. If a user posts too many (e.g. more than one) comments, you can "flag" that for a moderator to intervene, as you did, and so I have asked them to stop. If you have any other questions about this site (which you needn't) you are also welcome to ask on the Meta site.


text:
Quotes from the Buddha about sexual desire
I am trying to find sources of info of if the Buddha ever explained any reason why we as humans are afflicted by sexual desire.
Conventionally we are animals so are innately afflicted with a predisposition towards reproduction, with sexual desire itself being enticed by physical pleasure.
Just want to know if the Buddha explained this desire in any depth.
Obviously this issue would have come up within the sangha.

Animal is related to reproduction but has nothing to do with craving desire for sex.  Animals are not secondary, not with mind, so although the idea to human person comes along that animals appear to be craving it is not that way

Here's a sutta quote on the sexual identities and sexualities of men and women, and how it affects their mind:

A woman focuses on her own femininity: her feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So she focuses on the masculinity of others: masculine moves,
masculine appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine
voice, and masculine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes
pleasure in it. So she desires to bond with another. And she desires
the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient
beings who are attached to their femininity are bound to men. This is
how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
A man focuses on his own masculinity: his masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he focuses on the femininity of others: feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he desires to bond with another. And he desires the pleasure and
happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings who are
attached to their masculinity are bound to women. This is how a man
does not transcend his masculinity. This is how one is bound.
AN 7.51

The seven sexual fetters, beyond the act itself, are explained in this sutta quote below:

“But what, Master Gotama, is a break, taint, stain, or mar in
celibacy?”
“Firstly, an ascetic or brahmin who claims to be perfectly celibate
does not mutually engage in sex with a female. However, they consent
to being anointed, massaged, bathed, and rubbed by a female. They
enjoy it and like it and find it satisfying. This is a break, taint,
stain, or mar in celibacy. This is called one who lives the celibate
life impurely, tied to the fetter of sex. They’re not freed from
rebirth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and
distress. They’re not freed from suffering, I say.
Furthermore, an ascetic or brahmin who claims to be perfectly celibate
does not mutually engage in sex with a female. Nor do they consent to
massage and bathing. However, they giggle and play and have fun with
females. …
they gaze into a female’s eyes. …
they listen through a wall or rampart to the sound of females laughing
or chatting or singing or crying. …
they recall when they used to laugh, chat, and have fun with females …
they see a householder or their child amusing themselves, supplied and
provided with the five kinds of sensual stimulation. …
They don’t see a householder or their child amusing themselves,
supplied and provided with the five kinds of sensual stimulation.
However, they live the celibate life wishing to be reborn in one of
the orders of gods. They think: ‘By this precept or observance or
mortification or spiritual life, may I become one of the gods!’ They
enjoy it and like it and find it satisfying. This is a break, taint,
stain, or mar in celibacy. This is called one who lives the celibate
life impurely, tied to the fetter of sex. They’re not free from
rebirth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and
distress. They’re not free from suffering, I say.
As long as I saw that these seven sexual fetters—or even one of
them—had not been given up in me, I didn’t announce my supreme perfect
awakening in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this
population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans.
AN 7.50

MN 75 talks about burning with sensual fever, and the more one indulges in sensual pleasures, the more the sensual craving increases. This applies to all sensual pleasures, not just sex.

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
sensuality.
MN 75

Good answer! Theravada is entirely unforgiving in taking this all the way to the end!

insane quotes haha

Most of his talks were to monks, and so -- by definition, of "monk" -- not sexual intercourse.
Instead of "being enticed by physical pleasure", I think he more often explained it as an attraction to "form", including "sight-objects".
I think it's a question of, "To what does the heart leap up?"
So some people might leap up at the sight of some body.
It's also a question of "effluents" -- having seen, there are consequences like internal dialog, like I don't know, "Oh look! Will she...? What if I...? But..."
Conversely I think that someone who is "released" is "released from effluents through lack of clinging".
And that release comes through practice.

Nava Sutta
In the same way, even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development — 'O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!' — still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. Why is that? From lack of developing, it should be said. Lack of developing what? The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path.

This answer is similar to above answer, from Ahara Sutta:

And what is the food for the arising of unarisen sensual desire, or for the growth & increase of sensual desire once it has arisen? There is the theme of beauty. To foster inappropriate attention to it: This is the food for the arising of unarisen sensual desire, or for the growth & increase of sensual desire once it has arisen.

And Sabbasava Sutta talks about remedies.

Not really an answer to the question. The question was to WHY we have sexual desire, not how does sexual desire manifest.

The Buddha taught everything in life is an element (dhatu). Sexual desire is also an element.

There could, Ānanda. There are these six elements: the elements of
sensuality and renunciation, malice and good will, and cruelty and
harmlessness. When a mendicant knows and sees these six elements,
they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.
MN 115

On account of the element of sensuality, bhikkhus, arises a perception of sensuality, on account of a perception of sensuality arises an intention of sensuality, on account of an intention of sensuality arises a desire of sensuality, on account of a desire of sensuality arises an ardor of sensuality, on account of an ardor of sensuality arises a quest of sensuality. For the sake of a quest of sensuality, bhikkhus, an uninstructed ordinary individual conducts himself erroneously in three ways: in body, in speech and in mind.
SN 14.12

Even the thought ‘sensuality’ doesn’t occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would sensual desire for sensuality arise in it, even though a latent tendency to sensual passion lies latent within it?
MN 64

“Mendicants, there are these seven underlying tendencies. What seven? The underlying tendencies of sensual desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. These are the seven underlying tendencies.”
AN 7.11


text:
How should lay buddhists respond to amoral people?
How should lay buddhists respond to amoral people, people who keep generating bad karma for themselves but don't believe they've done anything wrong at all, especially if they have the power to get away with it materially speaking?

Treat them with kindness and according to Buddhsit values and ethics. If it doesn't work just leave them be - be mindful and focus on your own actions and life. Upvoted your question because I think it's good now.

I agree @LunarBastion

an ethic of quietism and restraint. it definitely sounds buddhist @LunarBastion

Strictly speaking, this does not answer your question, nevertheless, it is an appropriate response to the sort of situation you describe:
"Of course, there will be those who are misbehaving and refuse to change their ways, and there’s nothing—at least for the moment—you can do about it. That’s why equanimity is a necessary part of brahmavihāra practice. You reflect that beings are free to choose their actions, and you’re in no position to guarantee that everyone will choose to be skillful. Not even the Buddha could do that. So to keep your focus on training your own mind, you have to develop equanimity in cases where other people are beyond your ability to influence in a skillful direction."
That's from a section on "The Brahmavihāras" in Undaunted.
Life is choices, we have to choose where to direct our efforts effectively, skillfully. Sometimes that means abandoning those cases where we can't make a difference, or it's not worth our time and effort to try. That's not always easy to do, but the brahmavihāras can be very helpful in righting our emotional imbalances. Please have a look, for your own sake.

this is a really great answer, thanks. maybe they're amoral, maybe they're solipsists, maybe i'm just crazy. who knows! i won't deliberately make them unhappy, anyway

i could be more compassionate, i know that, that, it is a much more beneficent state of mind than ill will, even ill will you would never act on. i'll focus on equanimity for that, thanks


text:
Would a Buddha ever lie about lying?
Would an enlightened person (stream enterer at the minimum) ever [falsely] make the claim that he is lying?

Questions about hypotheticals are hard to answer either from scripture or from experience. The double negative (lying that one is lying) is not helping either :)

what are you getting at with the question?

An arahant or Buddha would never lie, including lying about lying.
However, a Sammasambuddha (a complete Buddha, with the extraordinary ability to teach the masses) may tell the truth about telling different types of truth, that may appear to conflict with each other, but they don't, in actual fact.
A good example is the noble right view vs. the right view with effluents.

"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts:
There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without
effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing
the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents,
who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that
is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
MN 117

you didn’t get the trick of the question:  if one says “I am lying”, is one lying or not lying?  regardless of enlightenedness of one.


text:
Anatta & reincarnation
Buddhism

Anatta (no-self doctrine)
Reincarnation (death-rebirth cycle in samsara)

How can something that doesn't exist reincarnate?

In very simple terms, "Anatta" implies that a self does not exist. It does not imply that nothing exists.
'Re-incarnation' is a continuing process. The phenomena that appear as a self is what continues.

If there's no self (anatta), what is it that reincarnates?


text:
looking for a particular sutta
i'm after the sutta where the Buddha says something like   'you can get to know another person if you have some awareness and wisdom, but even then you must live close by and observe them in all their activities, not for a short time, but for a long time'.

Traits -
Ṭhāna Sutta  (AN 4:192) That might be what you're thinking about:

“Monks, these four traits may be known by means of four (other)
traits. Which four?
“It’s through living together that a person’s virtue may be known, and
then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning,
not by one who is not discerning.
“It’s through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and
then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning,
not by one who is not discerning.
“It’s through adversity that a person’s endurance may be known, and
then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning,
not by one who is not discerning.
“It’s through discussion that a person’s discernment may be known, and
then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning,
not by one who is not discerning.."

It continues in more detail after that point.

Ah yes.  i've been given SN3.11 but this version has the particular details i was seeking.  thankyou


text:
Are there any Buddhist scriptures about motivation & discipline?
Is there a sutta suitable for monastics or laypeople, that helps one become motivated when one is having a hard time disciplining themselves?

I think laziness is seem as a hindrance to meditation, and there will be specific advice for how to get round it. i have no idea how it's treated in the laity.

By "discipline" I'll assume you mean "training" yourself, i.e., trying to establish a "pleasant and profitable" new habit. I hope you don't mean "punish" because that's torture and pain, a path that the Buddha abandoned.
Motivation occurs by seeing things clearly and seeing the long-term value in the thing that you want to gain. When you see things clearly in this way, you "Instruct, rouse, urge and encourage" (the Buddha's phrase) yourself to act in order to gain the result.
It can be helpful also to see clearly what's holding you back. If we just say, "I'm just lazy", or it's just sloth and torpor holding me down, that's pretty vague. What can you do about that?
But if you look at how the Buddha describes the four Courses of Action,  you may see your problem in the second of the four courses. That's one of the ones that everybody has trouble with: Doing what may be, or may seem unpleasant, but is profitable (will be for your long term welfare and happiness).
If that's the case, then you might start to see that maybe the problem is not with the thing (that you're not doing, or not doing enough of), it's with the suffering that you're creating now by the unskillful way that you're thinking about it. That's what's pushing you in the wrong direction, a sort of anti-motivation (inappropriate attention, leading to unskillful intention / karma, and unhappiness).
I have found the four Courses of Action insightful, and reflecting on them an inspiring way to motivate myself.
Nike: "Just Do It".
But that doesn't mean running around like a moron doing whatever you feel like, Buddhists do it skilfully, in the middle way.

COURSES OF ACTION (Ṭhāna Sutta  AN 4:115)
1-unpleasant to do and that, when done, leads to what is unprofitable.
2-unpleasant to do but that, when done, leads to what is profitable.
3-pleasant to do but that, when done, leads to what is unprofitable.
4-pleasant to do and that, when done, leads to what is profitable.

Yes, the famous lute or harp string analogy is useful here.

The Buddha said to him, “Soṇa, as you were in private retreat didn’t
this thought come to your mind: ‘I am one of the Buddha’s most
energetic disciples. Yet my mind is not freed from defilements by not
grasping. But my family has wealth. I could enjoy that wealth and make
merit. Why don’t I resign the training and return to a lesser life, so
I can enjoy my wealth and make merit?’”
“Yes, sir.”
“What do you think, Soṇa? When you were still a layman, weren’t you a
good player of the arched harp?”
“Yes, sir.”
“When your harp’s strings were tuned too tight, was it resonant and
playable?”
“No, sir.”
“When your harp’s strings were tuned too slack, was it resonant and
playable?”
“No, sir.”
“But when your harp’s strings were tuned neither too tight nor too
slack, but fixed at an even tension, was it resonant and playable?”
“Yes, sir.”
“In the same way, Soṇa, when energy is too forceful it leads to
restlessness. When energy is too slack it leads to laziness. So, Soṇa,
you should apply yourself to energy and serenity, find a balance of
the faculties, and learn the pattern of this situation.”
“Yes, sir,” Soṇa replied.
AN 6.55

Read AN 8.80 which is about perspective/attitude and the five daily recollections. Reflecting on death can be a source of urgency.


text:
Is unhappiness/happiness something more then negative/positive feeling?
How do Buddhists account for unhappiness without negative vedana? Is there no way to do so except future feeling (and so moral agency) and enlightenment?
e.g. while there's a lot of things I want to change, there's nothing much I would say I'm "unhappy about" in addition to that: does that latter claim mean anything more than feeling?
What about unhappy relationships, groups and ideologies, are they just vedana and enlightenment?

I don't understand what "feeling tone" means but it's central to the question.

ok sorry @ChrisW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedan%C4%81 is just what i mean, though i'm not entirely sure i understood it!

Thanks! Can you also reword the first sentence to not use the word "it"? And the title, to include a question mark?

In Theravada, when one breaks the tenth fetter, ignorance, then nothing is seen to need changing, and thus all of the prior wanting to change was an elaborate but subtle form of suffering. This suffering is called restlessness. Restlessness hangs off all the lower fetters like a parasite and is the fundamental motivation for all strife and unrest found in the human condition.

i don't have that as a goal @Max taken literally, it runs against most of what i believe about agency

do you have a quote on that @Max ? i'm guessing you are glossing "conditioned" as "wanting change", but i think that's maybe wrong. it means "constructed", not idk 'deconstructed'

Is this what you mean?  - "can I plan to improve the current situation in the future, without experiencing any aversion to, or dissatisfaction with, the status quo? And does this mean that I'm happy?"

@anon - yes, it seems rather an extreme comment of mine. It was just a fleeting comment. I should really have created an answer about what that comment actually means, as it is quite profound on many levels. It certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't go forth in the world and create a better future.

I rephrase your question as "can I plan to improve the current situation in the future, without experiencing any aversion to, or dissatisfaction with, the status quo? And does this mean that I'm happy?"
Taking the Buddha himself as the example, did he teach the Dhamma because he was dissatisfied with the status quo of the masses?
No. He simply taught, in various degrees, out of compassion and knew that it will be more helpful to some and less helpful to others.

“Well, sir, why exactly do you teach some people thoroughly and others
less thoroughly?”
“Well then, chief, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can
answer as you like. What do you think? Suppose a farmer has three
fields: one’s good, one’s average, and one’s poor—bad ground of sand
and salt. What do you think? When that farmer wants to plant seeds,
where would he plant them first: the good field, the average one, or
the poor one?”
“Sir, he’d plant them first in the good field, then the average, then
he may or may not plant seed in the poor field. Why is that? Because
at least it can be fodder for the cattle.”
“To me, the monks and nuns are like the good field. I teach them the
Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in
the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal a spiritual
practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that? Because they live
with me as their island, protection, shelter, and refuge.
To me, the laymen and laywomen are like the average field. I also
teach them the Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the
middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal
a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that?
Because they live with me as their island, protection, shelter, and
refuge.
To me, the ascetics, brahmins, and wanderers who follow other paths
are like the poor field, the bad ground of sand and salt. I also teach
them the Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and
good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal a spiritual
practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that? Hopefully they
might understand even a single sentence, which would be for their
lasting welfare and happiness.
SN 42.7

The Buddha also was not concerned with how many people he would save or not save, from suffering.

So what exactly has been declared by Master Gotama?”
“Uttiya, I teach my disciples from my own insight in order to purify
sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain
and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize
extinguishment.”
“But when Master Gotama teaches in this way, is the whole world saved,
or half, or a third?” But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent.
Then Venerable Ānanda thought, “The wanderer Uttiya must not get the
harmful misconception: ‘When the ascetic Gotama was asked this
all-important question he falters without answering. He just can’t do
it!’ That would be for his lasting harm and suffering.”
Then Ānanda said to the wanderer Uttiya, “Well then, Reverend Uttiya,
I shall give you a simile. For by means of a simile some sensible
people understand the meaning of what is said. Suppose there was a
king’s frontier citadel with fortified embankments, ramparts, and
arches, and a single gate. And it has a gatekeeper who is astute,
competent, and clever. He keeps strangers out and lets known people
in. As he walks around the patrol path, he doesn’t see a hole or cleft
in the wall, not even one big enough for a cat to slip out. He doesn’t
know how many creatures enter or leave the citadel. But he does know
that whatever sizable creatures enter or leave the citadel, all of
them do so via this gate.
In the same way, it’s not the Realized One’s concern whether the whole
world is saved by this, or half, or a third. But the Realized One
knows that whoever is saved from the world—whether in the past, the
future, or the present—all have given up the five hindrances,
corruptions of the heart that weaken wisdom. They have firmly
established their mind in the four kinds of mindfulness meditation.
And they have truly developed the seven awakening factors. That’s how
they’re saved from the world, in the past, future, or present. Uttiya,
you were just asking the Buddha the same question as before in a
different way. That’s why he didn’t answer.”
AN 10.95

If anyone doesn't bother to listen and follow his teachings, the Buddha simply gave up teaching him or her and moved on.

“Sir, what do you do with a person in training who doesn’t follow
these forms of training?”
“In that case, Kesi, I kill them.”
“Sir, it’s not appropriate for the Buddha to kill living creatures.
And yet you say you kill them.”
“It’s true, Kesi, it’s not appropriate for a Realized One to kill
living creatures. But when a person in training doesn’t follow any of
these forms of training, the Realized One doesn’t think they’re worth
advising or instructing, and neither do their sensible spiritual
companions. For it is killing in the training of the Noble One when
the Realized One doesn’t think they’re worth advising or instructing,
and neither do their sensible spiritual companions.”
AN 4.111

i think you put a strange emphasis on things here, but thanks for the quotes

do you mean: wanting to help others need not make you unhappy? if so, then that does directly answer the question, so +1

i don't know what "status quo" means. the economy could be better and more fair, and or abolished for mutual aid etc.. is that what you mean? seems fairly irrelevant to a prince's teaching

@anon "status quo" means the current state of affairs or the current situation.

everything is the status quo? is my/your karma the status quo: i think that's what stopped me accepting the answer :) ? I guess you mean "only karma matters" which yeah i am sympathetic to in some ways, so i'll accept the answer i guess

Dukkha is a mismatch or a conflict between expectation and reality.
If you have such conflict, it means you have dukkha, and you are not happy.
Normally, people always have this conflict but oftentimes they just don't see it. When they don't see it - there's no vedana, no experience of pain, but the splinter is there in the heart and it makes one restless.
Enlightened Buddha does not have a conflict between reality and expectation. He sees things as they are (yatabhuta). He sees problems as problems, understanding why it is this way and not expecting it to be otherwise at this point. It is as it is. Therefore we don't call this "happiness", we call it "suchness".
When Buddha acts, the action is the best possible response to the situation, to maximize the good for everyone. Buddha does not act out of frustration or because he wishes things to be different. He acts a certain way just because acting another way would be suboptimal, that's it.
For example, Buddha does not have a desire to teach or to improve people because he is unhappy with how they are. Instead, he meets people coming at him and responds in the best possible way. In Chinese Buddhism this is called no-action, wu-wei. It is no-action because it is not based on a desire, it's just a response.
To summarize, an unenlightened person acts because he wants things to be different, because his world does not match his expectations, therefore he wants to improve it. While Buddha works with things as they are, with full understanding of why they are this way, not wishing things to be otherwise but simply responding in the best possible way.

For the curious, here is a a sutta that relates to Andrei's great answer:

MN148:29-33.6: When you experience a pleasant feeling, if you approve, welcome, and keep clinging to it,
MN148:29-33.7: the underlying tendency to greed underlies that.
MN148:29-33.8: When you experience a painful feeling, if you sorrow and wail and lament, beating your breast and falling into confusion,
MN148:29-33.9: the underlying tendency to repulsion underlies that.
MN148:29-33.10: When you experience a neutral feeling, if you don’t truly understand that feeling’s origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape,
MN148:29-33.11: the underlying tendency to ignorance underlies that.
MN148:29-33.12: Mendicants, without giving up the underlying tendency to greed for pleasant feeling, without dispelling the underlying tendency to repulsion towards painful feeling, without eradicating ignorance in the case of neutral feeling, without giving up ignorance and without giving rise to knowledge, it’s simply impossible to make an end of suffering in the present life.

Note that the Buddha also discusses the subtlety of "neutral feeling" beyond the two feelings of "pleasant" and "painful".

I don't see how this answers the question. i suppose it kinda does if you mean to say "no except for enlightened people". i don't think ethics for the good of others is limited to bodhisattvas, anyway


text:
Nyanaponika Thera on the Inter-relations of the Four Sublime States
I'm wondering about older sources for some of what Ven. Nyanaponika Thera says in this essay:

The Four Sublime States:
Contemplations on Love, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity.

For some of the claims, it's easy for me to realize what older text he's referencing - for instance his claims about why they are called sublime you can trace to Vism. IX 105.
But specifically for his claims about how the four sublime abidings all suffuse each other, I'm having a harder time thinking of an older reference. Anyone know one? Or should these be categorized as his own claims?
The passages I'm thinking of are these ones:

"How, then, do these four sublime states pervade and suffuse each
other?
Unbounded love guards compassion against turning into partiality,
prevents it from making discriminations by selecting and excluding and
thus protects it from falling into partiality or aversion against the
excluded side.
Love imparts to equanimity its selflessness, its boundless nature and
even its fervor. For fervor, too, transformed and controlled, is part
of perfect equanimity, strengthening its power of keen penetration and
wise restraint.
Compassion prevents love and sympathetic joy from forgetting that,
while both are enjoying or giving temporary and limited happiness,
there still exist at that time most dreadful states of suffering in
the world. It reminds them that their happiness coexists with
measureless misery, perhaps at the next doorstep. It is a reminder to
love and sympathetic joy that there is more suffering in the world
than they are able to mitigate; that, after the effect of such
mitigation has vanished, sorrow and pain are sure to arise anew until
suffering is uprooted entirely at the attainment of Nibbana."

etc.

They are his own reflections as far as I can tell.
IMO the suttas don't suggest that the 4 brahma vihāras keep each other in check. My interpretation is that each of the 4bv on its own, like every other major pre Buddhist concept that the Buddha borrowed and then redefined, like the 5 faculties, 'dukkha', 'arahant', becomes subservient and must conform to the Buddha's teaching on 4 noble truths, and right view especially. So the upekkha as a brahma-vihāra, essentially becomes the same upekkha of 4th jhāna. Whereas upekkha pre-Buddhist, would probably mean one has the equanimous observation of someone with the understanding of karma, rebirth, but obviously not the full understanding of a Buddha and an Arahant that ends rebirth.


text:
What is meant by awareness-release, ...?
In "The Sublime Attitudes" the word "release" appears multiple times.
What is meant by "awareness-release"?
What is meant by "release of awareness"?
Do both have the same meaning?
Do they mean escape? As in, from becoming aware, I am released (from something).
Do they mean potential attention (awareness), become manifest?
Both, neither?
Twice in the sutta the translator uses the phrase "no higher release" (without the word awareness). Is this significant?
Help!
:-)

what is the sublime attitudes text? is it theravada?

There's a different translation of this sutta available on SuttaCentral.
There you can enable a line by line Pali transliteration and find the word used in the original text.
That word is 'cetovimutti', a synonym of Enlightenment or Liberation that's usually translated as liberation of heart or release of awareness or deliverance of mind etc. Here 'ceto' is 'citta', the mind-heart-consciousness, and 'vimutti' is 'vimukti' - liberation, independence, emancipation etc.
This refers to the culmination of the Buddhist path that follows the ending of defilements (greed, aversion, delusion) and transcendence of any and all conceptual ground.

If you'd like a Zen perspective, then I wrote you this little koan within a koan to capture the essence of awareness release...

A zen student came to visit his master with an answer to the koan,
'what is the box that captures all space?"
The student walked into the master's room, and the master said, "close
the door", to which the student immediately replied with, "you mean
seal the hole in the wall?"
They both looked at each other and laughed!
In that moment, the student became a zen master.

If you’re that way inclined, it's about looking at the nature of space, but looking so deeply with a zen-like attitude, that space is seen as a perception, leading to the One space as having no dimensions at all. In all the ways it is seen to be captured, typically rooms, it is the same One space no matter where you are.
This could be understood as awareness release and in many Zen traditions, the infamous circular paint stroke is synonymous with awareness release. It is called Enso. In fact, the Shinjinmei text describes it as a circle like vast space, lacking nothing, nothing in excess.
I could go on and on with zen stuff, but zen is better as a short, sharp shock.


text:
Is exposing immoral behavior divisive speech?
Imagine a journalist writing about the crimes of a mafia boss or corruption in a dictatorial government, and other people pounce on history and share it on social media. Is what the Jornalist and/or those who spread his articles do divisive speech? Keep in mind that this type of news is mainly read for entertainment and will cause ill will against the perpetrators in most readers. On the other hand, this type of journalism is an important mechanism that ensures that corruption does not spiral out of control.
Bonus question: Is journalism right livelihood?

I'd answer by referencing the Vinaya.
Not because journalists are bound by the Vinaya;
nor because the Vinaya is intended to regulate the behaviour of lay society;
but because I find it instructive ("if the rule is good enough for monks, or necessary for monks, then...");
and because if the question is asking for an answer based on a reference, perhaps there is no specific doctrine in the suttas, so the vinaya maybe the nearest thing you'll find.
If you read a copy of the Vinaya e.g. here you'll see it's not necessarily "wrong speech" to bring an accusation.
There are rules about it -- doing it at the proper time, for example, and with permission to speak (and I suppose that anyone who reads an article is thereby implicitly giving the author permission to "speak").
Making unfounded accusations is wrong, but,

As under Sg 8, there is no offense if one makes the accusation—or
gets someone else to make it—when one thinks it to be true, even if the
other bhikkhu is actually not guilty of the offense.
Summary: Making an unfounded charge to another bhikkhu—or getting
someone else to make the charge to him—that he is guilty of a saṅghādisesa
offense is a pācittiya offense.

I'm not sure what "divisive" means, I suppose the canonical example would be Devadatta's splitting the sangha by arguing against the Buddha's vinaya.
Perhaps this sort of thing is what politicians (rather than journalists) do, if ever they try to create factions in the population.
I suspect that the intention in reporting wrong-doing isn't necessarily divisive -- in a community that's united by an ethical code of conduct, perhaps it's any misconduct (i.e. not the accusation) that's divisive. The accusation and so on may be part of the corrective or unifying mechanism.
I suppose it depends. Just as there's both Right and Wrong speech, Right and Wrong livelihood, there are probably right and wrong ways to report on the conduct of public affairs, and criminal activity, and other matters of "public interest".
I don't think you can say, "Oh it's wrong to ever accuse anyone of anything, that's divisive!"
Of course a monk maybe shouldn't be embroiled in political topics: but the question is about journalists.

I generally avoid questions that are meant to be provocative. Better to leave muddy waters to settle themselves than to go wading into them, if you follow me. But in this case I'm appreciating the irony, so...
The essence of divisive speech is that it is meant to provoke a group: to suggest that one group of humans (variously defined) is somehow physically, intellectually, or morally inferior, and that another group should revel in their own superiority and push the first group aside. It is meant to divide a population into 'prestige' groups, and to draw all prestige away from one group so the other can control it. It's the gateway to the hungry ghost realm, where one so craves social standing that one is ready to practically anything to acquire it.
Someone reporting on crimes or corruption is not intending to pit one group against another; such a person is trying to invoke moral standards that every person in the community should hold, so that they can collectively condemn individuals who are violating the social contract of the community. Such reporting is a unifying factor unrelated to group prestige, except in the trivial sense that a community naturally thinks of itself as morally sound and rejects those who subvert it.
Obviously there are periods of history where large segments of the population fall into the 'group prestige' trap, such that no member of their group can be accused of anything without the entire group reacting as though the accusation is 'divisive' or 'provocative.' It's a kind of group narcissism in which nothing any member of the group does is ever wrong, and the only 'wrongness' is that some evil, nasty monstrosity would dare to cast aspersions. These are eras in which any perversion, prevarication, or depravity can be committed with a clean conscience, because one's moral standing comes from one's group membership, not from one's given acts.
I can't speak to social media itself, because social media is (in some senses) a modern sewage system for the human psyche. In its degraded form it is entirely about prestige-hunting, from the coarsest trolls trying to one-up everyone to the rawest egos who use media solely for self-glorification. But the act of journalism itself — the act of exposing abuses in the social, political, and economic worlds — is not meant to be divisive.
Like anything else, right livelihood is a matter of internal posture or attitude, not external behaviors. Journalism can be dharmic, or it can be karmic; it depends on how one approaches it. No sense defaming journalists as a group...

Thank you for your detailed reply. The question was not intended as a provocation. I believe that reading a lot of news is detrimental to your mental health and spiritual development. This raises the question of whether creating and distributing messages is problematic. I think this is a very relevant practical topic for the practitioner of the present.

The concept of "divisive speech" refers to language that is intended to create conflict or divisions among people.
Exposing immoral behavior could be seen as a form of divisive speech if it is done in a way that is intended to cause harm or create conflict.
However, it is also important to consider the intentions behind the speech and the potential consequences of remaining silent about immoral behavior.
In some cases, speaking out about immoral behavior may be necessary to bring attention to and address harmful actions, even if it may initially cause conflict.
In the context of journalism, and following your example, journalists have a responsibility to report the truth and inform the public about important issues and events.
This includes reporting on the crimes of a dictatorial government, even if the news may be disturbing or distasteful to some readers.
While it is important to consider the potential impact of the news on readers, it is also important to recognize that the primary role of journalism is to provide accurate and unbiased information to the public.
In the case of reporting on the crimes of a dictatorial government, it may be tempting to present the information in a way that is sensational or emotional in order to grab the attention of readers.
However, it is important for journalists to strive for objectivity and fairness in their reporting, even if this means presenting information that may be difficult or unpleasant to read.
By providing accurate and unbiased information about the crimes of a dictatorial government, journalists can help to expose wrongdoing and hold those in power accountable for their actions.
Ultimately, the decision to speak out about immoral behavior should be guided by a sense of compassion and the desire to create a more positive and harmonious society.

Divisive speech is one of the four types of wrong speech. By knowing what wrong speech is, a being on the path is better equipped to understand what right speech is (and is not). Right speech is not intended to be used to judge those not on the path, it is intended to be used to judge the quality of one's own intentions, and to reflect on the results of one's own actions.
Learn more about Right Speech here, Robert.

Is journalism exposing immoral behavior considered divisive speech?
Firstly, was it a false accusation? If yes, that's not right speech.
Secondly, did it have the intention of ill will? Was it intentionally made to cause division? If yes, then that's not right intention.
However, if it was truthful, it had the good intention of pointing out and leading to the correction of misbehavior, if it was not spoken harshly and if it was spoken at the right time, then it's right speech.

“And what, bhikkhus, is right intention? Intention of renunciation,
intention of non-ill will, intention of harmlessness: this is called
right intention.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right speech? Abstinence from false speech,
abstinence from divisive speech, abstinence from harsh speech,
abstinence from idle chatter: this is called right speech.
SN 45.8

“Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not
ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which
five?
“It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken
affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of
good-will.
“A statement endowed with these five factors is well-spoken, not
ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people.”
AN 5.198

Journalisms original purpose isn't pulling nor judging, but to best provide with reports in very ethical way. Something that is no more present in western media at all. If one looks with an open eye to the media industry, it has long left moral and ethis and respect, but looks after gain by serving the common food with opinions feeding their defilements.
So 90% of journalism, maybe more, as well as reading it with appreciation, even give money for it, is huge unskillfull, seeks for gain by deviding people, split good relations, traditiinal relations, apart, full of bias, arrogance and not dear to profit on the corps and cemeteries.
There are less medias still under supervision beyond of market and daily short thought politic.
Where does one find anything proper to rejoice with in a Dhammic sense, any praise of good, real moral, or restrain? Impossible once caught in Maras huge internet realm.

Journalism is a type of glorified gossip. It is also used in the weaponization of civilians. It delivers information that is largely toxic, inaccurate and and dominating. Just like gossip, it segregates groups of people from one another and is the cause of untold fear. It is therefore an extension of the largely misunderstood shadow mind projected out into the world, all the internal fears and emotional hang ups. The psychological immaturity of the global cultural is expressed more prominently through journalism, and later mirrored in the larger population. As it happens, they both work in unison as journalism activates our own dark fears.
Looking at journalism from this wider perspective, it is simply a slow and methodical way for the samsaric mind to reference itself, such that the displacement it causes becomes so stark, so unremittingly poisonous, that one has no other option but to scrutinise the very motivation from which the outcries of journalism are supposed to be addressing. It is simply a way to find ease to the discomfort stored as pressure in our body and minds, and as such, a particular kind of dance will ensue. Sometimes that dance looks rather well choreographed, other times it is quite obvious the loud bellows of journalism are the depths of the mind crying out for the peace of the heart.
Having said that, there are types of journalism and journalists that only have the express intention to deliver plain factual information without an agenda - nothing more, nothing less. But for most, journalism is about filtering information to reach the minds of particular people for a particular purpose. While that purpose is usually nefarious, its deeper meaning can be seen to serve the inner core of restlessness found in each and every human being, and the attempts to reconcile with that inner battle to eventually find peace. Unfortunately, most people aren't able to understand the mind in this way, so the route to peace looks rather convoluted. Never mind!
This might then change your question: amongst this mass of turmoil called journalism, how do we discern what is true? Well, I wouldn't even try. These days my body is like a cloud, it moves through the world without intention, and rains down the dhamma, yet nothing is achieved. This was understood by not trying to figure out the world's neurotic tendencies, but focusing expressly on my own peace, which later finds a way through to others.


text:
Clinging to perception aggregate
S 14.7 The Discourse on the Diversity of Perception says this:

Dependent on the mind-object element, there arises the perception of
mind-object; Dependent on the perception of mind-object, there arises
the thought regarding mind-object; Dependent on the thought regarding
mind-object, there arises the desire for mind-object; Dependent on the
desire for mind-object, there arises the passion for mind-object;Dependent on the passion for mind-object, there arises the searching for mind-object.

i want to know if clinging to perception aggregate is causing thinking to occur.  i am not interested in thinking (sometimes, more than not, interal verbalization).  it's unhappy, tiresome, stressful, etc.  if so, how am i clinging to perception aggregate?  i am not aware of clinging to this...is it an unknown mind-
object?  can knowledge
be a mind-object?

Why did you change the question completely?

@blue_ego You cannot change the question completely after it has been answered. If you have more questions, they should be created as new question(s). I have rolled it back. Please create new questions if you have more questions, instead of continuously changing this one.

And yes, knowledge and thoughts are mind objects.

Feelings or sensations (vedana) are of six types - sight, sound, smell, taste, tactile and thoughts.
Emotional thoughts and mental chatter are part of sankhara or mental formations or mental fabrications.
The aggregate of perception (saññaa) is related to memory and perceiving sensed objects (of the six types).
From The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis:

Perception (saññaa)
Perception is awareness of an object's distinctive features. It
becomes six-fold in relation to the five physical sense objects
(color, sound, smell, taste, touch), and mental objects. It is sañña
that enables us to recognize an object previously perceived. .....
Perception and memory. Memory occurs not through a single factor but
through a complex process in which perception plays the most important
role. When the mind first cognizes an object through the senses,
perception "picks out" the object's distinctive mark. When the same
object is met with on a subsequent occasion, perception again notices
that its distinctive mark is identical with the previous one. It
"grasps" the identity of the distinctive marks. This "grasping" is a
complex series of thought processes, one of which connects the present
object with the previous one and another attaches to the present
object the previous one's name. Memory will be good if this "grasping"
functions well, and "grasping" will function well if the initial
"picking out" of the object's distinctive marks was clear, not
obscured by irrelevant thoughts. Clear perception comes through
attention. As the Buddha says: "In what is seen there must be just the
seen, in what is heard there must be just the heard, in what is sensed
there must be just the sensed, in what is thought there must be just
the thought."

From the same source:

Feeling (vedanaa)
In the Abhidhamma context the word "feeling" signifies the affective
experience of an object; it does not imply emotion, which comes under
a different heading. Feeling is associated with every type of
consciousness. Like the citta itself it is of momentary duration,
arising and perishing in an instant. This arising and perishing occur
in rapid succession, so much so that they create an illusion of
compactness and stability obscuring the momentariness. But the
momentariness can be experienced through the practice of mindfulness.
It will then be realized that there is no self or agent that
experiences the feeling. There is only the arising and disappearing of
an impersonal process. As long as we do not see how this impersonal
process occurs we will be led to believe that feeling is the self, or
the self possesses feeling, or feeling is in the self, or the self is
in feeling. These beliefs keep us bound to suffering — to sorrow,
lamentation, pain, grief, and despair.
Feelings are commonly classified into three types: pleasant,
unpleasant, and neutral.

Let's take an example. There are a bunch of roses in a vase in a restaurant. You see them - this is feeling or sensation. Then based on your past memories, you perceive it as roses. Oh... but then it reminds you of your ex-lover to whom you used to give or receive roses. Then the mind feels or senses the mental object of your ex-lover and his or her association with roses, and perceives it to be memories of events of the past. Then you start having emotions of sadness and start the mental chatter of negative thoughts about your ex-lover. That's part of mental fabrications.
Also:

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of
the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one
perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.
Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of
objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future
forms cognizable via the eye.
MN 18

And similarly for the other senses including mind and thoughts.

this is a good answer. is the example of roses an example of clinging to perception?  it's characterized by association?  a matter of related memories?

i'm wondering if I'm just bad at labeling...or not satisfied with that process, and this is partly the cause of circular thinking...

@blue_ego You can associate your self with any of the five aggregates. That's considered clinging to them. It's a good question - what is an example of associating the self with perception? Perhaps the example of the roses can be one example. Roses by themselves are simply flowers, but when they give you additional meaning by association with past memories, they become associated with your self. In this way, you cling to perception.

ok, i understand now :)...but isn't that what the intellect does?  associating, comparing, analyzing, categorizing, etc.

"give additional meaning by association"...this is proliferation (papanca)?

@blue_ego Yes, that's papanca. You can read more about papanca and also perception in MN 18: "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye." and similarly for the other senses.

Can’t we say consciousness experiences the feeling?


text:
Is there a distinction made in any Buddhist texts between Religion and Philosophy?
In western philosophy the distinction primarily goes like this:
Philosophy - The rational investigation of human reason.
Religion - Similar but has its basis in faith rather than 'rationality'.
What I was primarily wondering was, does Buddhism make the same kind of explicit distinctions like in western philosophy? Do they view philosophy and religion as the same thing? And, if so what do both Buddhist texts and contemporary scholars say about it.
Not asking whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy

Is religion an investigation of human reason based on faith, in western philosophy?

There are two layers to this question: 1) Does Buddhist vocabulary (e.g. Pali) use words equivalent to "religion" and "philosophy" to define and distinguish those two categories? 2) More practically does Buddhism distinguish whether a action or view is based on "irrational faith" or based on "reason"? I'd propose that an answer might be "yes" to the second question (I could give several examples), but "no not that I happen to know of" for the first.

@ruben2020 What would be a more sufficient definition in a philosophical context?

It might be worth noting that the distinction between 'science' and 'philosophy' is recent, dating only to around the early 19th c. In the earlier centuries, what we now distinguish as science, religion and philosophy were all seen as aspects of wisdom and not nearly as sharply distinguished as they have since become.  But, that said, there is a distinction in the Mahāyāna between higher (paramatha) and conventional (samvrti) truth which can be mapped against the distinction between revealed wisdom and the empirical sciences.

The Buddha once spoke about a philosopher who talked about religions:

AN10.116:3.2: “Mendicants, do you remember this philosopher’s points?”

And the Buddha proceeds to point out the importance of principles in any discussion or lecture:

AN10.116:7.1: Another person rebuts and quashes principled and unprincipled statements with unprincipled statements. This delights an unprincipled assembly,
AN10.116:7.2: who make a dreadful racket:
AN10.116:7.3: ‘He’s a true philosopher! He’s a true philosopher!’

Without a careful discernment of principles, much can go astray:

AN10.116:8.1: Mendicants, you should know bad principles and good principles.

Principles are foundational. Rationality or faith that relies on bad principles is unsatisfactory and unskilled.
Buddhist principles include: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right immersion. The Buddha concludes quite rationally:

AN10.116:12.1: ‘You should know bad principles and good principles.

So perhaps we should all have faith in the rational application of good principles?

Is there any more context on what the buddha means when he says "philosopher"

The original Pali has: "paṇḍito", which touches modern English as "pundit".

Philosophy is a term that really only makes sense in the Western culture or other Greek-influenced contexts. And no, none of the various Buddhist schools make a distinction between the more religious and the more logical parts of their systems.
However, many Buddhist schools incorporate a thorough and nearly "scientific" method of introspection, sometimes combined with quite formal logical reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_logico-epistemology).

When a "disciple" just cites texts, yet consumes like one who hasn't heard the teachings, then such hasn't taken on a "(re)legion" (bond) but just defents his stand, his home.
What does one go after when asking a philosophical question? What does one maintain when citing deep words yet wearing pyjamas, sitting in his living room?


text:
what is Mahaggataṃ citam? is it related to out of body experience?
the typical  translation of  Mahaggataṃ citam is , exalted , or expanded mind?
and in MN 127...two types of cetovimutti described.
(1)mahaggatā cetovimutti (expanded freedom of mind)
it related to  area..
area of size, 1 treeor 2 or 3 tree or village, or kingdom , or earth and so on..
(2) appamāṇā cetovimutti?  (limitless freedom of mind)
it described by direction.

I’m voting to close this question because the answer to this question is plainly self-evident in MN 127 cited in the question.

Mahaggataṁ cetovimuttiṁ is the liberation of mind via loving-kindness. It is not an out-of-body experience.

The limitless (appamāṇā) release of the heart and the expansive (mahaggatā) release of the heart mean the same thing, and differ only in the phrasing.”
And what is the limitless release of the heart? It’s when a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion … They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing … They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. This is called the limitless release of the heart.
And what is the expansive release of the heart? It’s when a mendicant meditates determined on pervading the extent of a single tree root as expansive. This is called the expansive release of the heart. Also, a mendicant meditates determined on pervading the extent of two or three tree roots … a single village district … two or three village districts … a single kingdom … two or three kingdoms … this land surrounded by ocean. This too is called the expansive release of the heart. This is a way to understand how these things differ in both meaning and phrasing.
MN 127

Just putting quotes from tipitak can not be said as answer. that we all know.

The subject of meditation is different. In limitless meditation of heart we meditate on the directions North , South , East , West , up , down , left , right.
But in expansive meditation we meditate area wise , root of tree, villages , cities , kingdoms , nations , continents.
It is not necessarily out of body experience. To feel it ,you will have to give up jealousy, enmity, lust , aversion , delusion, ill will . Have a heart full of love , joy , compassion and equanimity. Not all at the same time but one by one. Unless you renounce the world it is difficult to experience or develop heart with aforementioned qualities. Renouncing the world is not easy in this materialistic world , however you can try by meditating at least for some time in solitude.