text:
Serious asthma and meditation, how much should I struggle? Is anxiety at night ok?
I have struggled with serious chronic asthma all my life.  I started meditating and in general felt very relaxed.  However a few years into the practice my asthma became very serious.  One night I fell asleep and dreamt of crawling under a rock and falling asleep forever.  I said to myself (in my dream), 'no, I must carry on'.  I then woke up only to find myself hardly breathing.  I think I almost died that night.
I want to keep meditating and dedicate myself to 'the way'.  I feel great happiness and peace this way.  I also don't want to be so at peace as to lose my life.  I have allowed myself a level of anxiety ever since and wake up at night regularly which is important in order to take medications when I need it however I feel the anxiety of course means I'm no longer at peace.  I have also tried to increase medication and move to a better environment but my health has not improved.
What is the buddhist way in this situation?
Possibly another way of phrasing this question is how much should I struggle to stay alive.  I'm not scared by death but also I don't want to die.
I'm happy to hear perspectives from different practices and lineages.

Apparently "sleep apnea" is fairly common. but because it happens during sleep people often don't know they have it. A doctor can diagnose it and maybe prescribe a solution.

Thanks, I don't have sleep apnea, I have asthma.  I have recorded my sleep a few times.

While a peaceful and relaxed state of mind is a good effect from meditating, if one is too attached to this peaceful state, it can get in the way of progress. When the mind is too absorbed in a peaceful state, awareness is lowered resulting in a lowering of discernment. We need a level of discernment to know if there is still work to be done and generate the desire to pursue the work till its completion as illustrated by the practice done by the venerable Sariputta.
Your described experience about dreamt of crawling under a rock and falling asleep forever is, I suspect, a form of attachment. It might had arisen from a subtle (albeit subconscious) desire to be away from it all (the stress and difficulties in life). It may be very peaceful, relaxing and seductive but it is anatta and it will not last. You should recognise this clinging and see that it leads to suffering. The Buddha pointed out only Nirvana offers a lasting peace.
So then stay alive to practise the Dharma. As long as there is still work to be done in the Dharma, dying will not free you from samsara. I suggest you consider doing mindfulness practice consistently throughout your waking hours (this will not interfere with your normal meditation). Don’t have to force it instead use your asthma as a motivating factor. Take note when the condition is better or worse. Try to reflect on any possible changes that could have trigger the change. Experiment if certain exercises or food help to improve or worsen the condition. Notice if different types of environments have an effect or if stress level impact as well. See if different ways of breathing help to improve the condition both during meditation and when not.
There is so many things you can try, experiment and tease out to see how they impact your condition. The goal is to eventually sharpen the discernment, focus, alertness and awareness of the mind. We are not doctors but if you do eventually figure out a way or system or approach to improve your condition, you could also share your experiences with others for their benefits.

Buddhism doesn't offer so much for chronic physical ailments, apart from non-attachment (acceptance) & endurance.
I watched a video yesterday that included this person, how he started heavy exercise due to chronic asthma.

I once heard a doctor tell me that when someone is suffocating they feel anxious (they were explaining why they would prescribe an anxiolytic) and so, I take it that anxiety is  a normal, physiological symptom or "sign" of suffocation.
So to answer the question in the title, I guess that yes it is "ok" to feel anxious, like it is "ok" to feel pain if skin is burned or cut.
See this answer which begins,

According to my teacher, the enlightened attitude is to see pain is information

If I understand the question, you say that when you experience the feeling of anxiety then you use that as information that it's time to wake up and take meds.
That is "skillful", isn't it?
Plus I guess that the feeling of anxiety is a feeling and therefore part of the five aggregates.
Something else that may be worth reading again is DN 16. Two things I remember from that, one is that the Buddha stayed alive because of "resolve" (and I think it was because of resolve as well that he would exit jhana state), the second was that it was during "signless" meditation that he was free from pain.


text:
what is the right relationship of asrava and ignorance?
To me asrava (asava) is 3 things: desire for worldly things, desire for becoming, desire for ignorance.  given my understanding, i formulate asrava is generally an influx of desire.  assuming i am right, how is desire for ignorance make sense?  who desires ignorance?

Related topic: What is effluent?

This question appears influenced by the idiosyncratic translations of Sujato; where Sujato appears to impute/conflate the underlying tendency (anusaya) of 'bhavarāgānusayo' ('lust for becoming') onto the asava. .
This subject matter of ignorance & asava is at the end of MN 9; where both ignorance & asava comprise of the 1st condition of Dependent Origination.
There are three asava, namely:

kāmāsavo
bhavāsavo
avijjāsavo

The word 'asava' appears to mean 'outflow' rather than 'influx'. For example, AN 3.25 says:

They’re like a festering sore, which, when you hit it with a stick or
a stone, discharges even more.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, duṭṭhāruko kaṭṭhena vā kaṭhalāya vā ghaṭṭito
bhiyyoso mattāya āsavaṁ deti;

The underlying tendencies (anusaya) refer to innate inborn predispositions, as explained in MN 64, which says:

For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion
‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him? Yet the
underlying tendency to identity view lies within him. A young tender
infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘teachings,’ so how
could doubt about the teachings arise in him? Yet the underlying
tendency to doubt lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone
does not even have the notion ‘rules,’ so how could adherence to rules
and observances arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to adhere to
rules and observances lies within him. A young tender infant lying
prone does not even have the notion ‘sensual pleasures (kāmesu),’ so how could
sensual desire (kāmacchando) arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual
lust lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even
have the notion ‘beings (sattā),’ so how could ill will towards beings (sattesu) arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will lies within him.

Unlike some of the anusaya (specifically kāmarāgānusayo & bhavarāgānusayo), the three asava are literally, in the suttas, not called 'desire/lust for asava'. This is because the asava are much more than the underlying tendencies (anusaya) flowing out. The asava can include both the inborn anusaya 'flowing out/discharging' and also asava 'flowing out/discharging' from sensuality, becoming & ignorance conditioned in the recent past. For example:

If I listened to a certain music yesterday & while I am meditating quietly today that music flows out of my subconscious, this asava is not the underlying tendency in the new born child mentioned in MN 64 but is the reemergence/flowing out of sensuality I engaged in yesterday.

If my mind manifested becoming (bhava) yesterday, such as my consciousness becoming so 'established' (refer to AN 3.76) in this music that this music would remerge today from my mind, this bhavāsava is directly not from inborn bhavarāgānusayo but is directly from the reemergence/flowing out of a new becoming that manifested yesterday.

If my consciousness listened to some mass-media fake-news (propaganda) yesterday and today I get into an argument about the topic of the fake-news, this is the direct reemergence/flowing out of a new ignorance that manifested yesterday rather than the outflow of the avijjānusayo I was born with.

Therefore, the asava can include both the inborn anusaya 'flowing out/discharging' and also asava flowing out from new sensuality, new becoming & new ignorance conditioned in life since birth from the mother's womb.
In summary, the three asava are not desire for sensuality, desire for becoming & desire for ignorance. Ignorance is something inborn rather than something desired. Desire does not exist prior to ignorance so ignorance can be desired. Ignorance is the 1st cause (AN 10.61).
Similarly, 'sensuality' (kāma) is a very broad term that can signify both the inborn tendency to engage in/enjoy/desire sensuality; as well as the objects of sensuality. Therefore, the term 'kāma' ('sensuality') does not necessarily mean 'desire for sensuality'. For example, even though the music I listened to yesterday reemerging today is fueled by the desire (delight) that manifested yesterday, this desire is not a present desire; it is not a new desire. It is old desire reemerging. Therefore, it appears not accurate to translate 'kāmāsavo' as 'desire for sensuality'. The word 'sensuality' is sufficient enough to infer there is some type of desire (whether old or new) tied up with it.
As for 'becoming', this is extremely broad. For example, a person in the past may have insulted or harmed us and, today, this past hurtful experience emerges/flows out. This means this insult or hurt was taken personally. It was becoming. While this asava (of anger or hurt) may be the reemergence of a desire not to be (vibhava tanha), it seems inaccurate to say this is 'desire for becoming'. It is just the reemergence of a past becoming. We do not necessarily desire it. Instead, it is an avasa just popping out; oozing out.
To understand Dependent Origination, anyusaya, asava & sankhara, we need to be very careful to avoid imputing 'volition' onto these phenomena. These phenomena are non-volitional. They are not 'volitional formations' or 'choices'. The word 'volition/choice' ('cetana') is first found in Dependent Origination at the nama-rupa condition. The asava flow out of the mind in a non-volitional; undesired; unchosen manner and it is at namarupa when the mind makes a wise choice (cetana) to eradicate the asava or, alternately, makes the ignorant choice to indulge in the asava and pursue the subjects of the asava externally via the six sense bases of contact.

thank u sir.  first thing i would say: inflow must meet outflow somewhere.

the dictionary says both  outflow & influx. https://suttacentral.net/define/%C4%81sava?lang=en

no. anusaya and asava is NOT within category of sankhara. it was written at the start of the answer MN 9 includes anusaya & asava within the category of ignorance. Please read MN 9 & ignore the myriad gurus & commentators with wrong view

MN9 is very interesting to me. the circular relationship between asava and ignorance is fascinating.

Yes. MN 9 is probably the most detailed sutta on the subject of dependent origination. I wrote an article about it here: https://www.academia.edu/82769817/Dependent_Origination_from_the_Pali_Suttas

To me, asava/asrava is a name of a fermented alcoholic drink popular in the Buddha times. He uses it metaphorically to indicate intoxicants sustaining the drunken mind of samsara.
There are three asavas, namely:

kāmāsavo, the intoxicant of sensuality
bhavāsavo, the intoxicant of individuality
avijjāsavo, the intoxicant of confused understanding.

The only way out is to stop consuming these intoxicants for a long enough time as to sober up.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Causes of specific illnesses/death
Are there specific causes for a specific disease or illness or cause of death that can be attributed to kamma earned in one of previous lives for a given person?
For instance, if a person is suffering from cancer or heart attack, is there a cause in the kammic history that he/she might have earned?
And what about causes of unnatural death in an unintentional manner?
The question that I am posing is, I know that not all causes of disease/death are caused by past kamma, But are there kammic causes for the rest of the events that cause disease/ailment/death in the present life?

I’m voting to close this question because is more related to modern medicine that to Buddhism.

I will attempt to answer this question. I think one of the misunderstandings of karma arises from the analogy of planting of seeds to describe good or bad karmic fruits. Good seeds lead to good karmic fruits but bad seeds lead to bad karmic fruits. A result of such simplification is that a particular seed will lead to a particular fruit, right? Mango seeds eventually results in mangoes while lemon seeds results in lemons. It is not so exact such that one suffering from cancer now is a result of causing cancer to another in some previous existence.
When a karmic seed (good or bad) is planted, it generates a force which will manifest in a future time and place. The exact form which this karmic force manifest would be a probability depending on the context of that future time and place. If a person was to be born in an advanced era where all types of cancer and disease are curable, then the likelihood of them dying from any disease is low. However, a bad karmic force would still want to manifest in other ways if not by disease, then by others e.g. accident or homicide.
An example is the precautionary tale of the limitations of supramundane powers. In the story, Venerable Mogallana tried to save five hundred Sakyas but failed. The Sakyas did not died in the hands of their enemies through battles but instead from a divine feat that went haywire.
In short, the effects of karma are multi-dimensional with a certain probabilistic tendency (from low to certainty). And it will still manifest in other dimensions even if you manage to somehow block its effect in one dimension. I am afraid you will need to find someone accomplished in the supramundane powers like the divine eye faculty and wisdom to truly understand the cause of a particular karmic effect. Not that it will be helpful because once a severe and bad karmic force manifest, even those with supramundane powers are helpless against it. This is illustrated by the death of Venerable Moggallana at the hands of brigands through a sudden loss of his supramundane power.

Mahamoggallana's powers failed because he had murdered his parents in a long ago past life. He had his parents beaten to death. He went to hell, but afterwards he was beaten to death in his future lives, including his final one.

The exact workings of kamma are imponderable (AN 4.77) for everyone but a Buddha. We know general trends like not killing creatures leads to a long life. MN 135
Kamma is also not the only factor. If a hurricane hits Haiti, did everyone who die have bad kamma? Probably not. And based on their kamma they'll have different types of rebirths.

I agreed that only the fully enlightened Tathagathas are accomplished in the workings of karma. But as victims of our own karma, it is our duty to observe, tease out, and logically deduce its workings. Why? Because the only reason why rational people take actions that ended up hurting themselves is because they don’t see far enough to ascertain the consequences. With a clearer understanding of karma, they will have a sensitivity to the karmic forces and consequences. This will help them to avoid unskillful actions and suffer.

We need not be as accomplished as the Buddha in the workings of karma but we must have enough understanding. Like all skills, our insights, understanding and wisdom into karma will only deepen if we keep observing, reflecting on and analyzing it. No one, not even the Buddha, will ever do this for us. We have to do this for ourselves for the sake of our own lasting well-being and happiness. If a person is not in samsara, they don't need to bother with the rule of the game i.e. karma. But what choice is there for us?

@triplej the link in the answer is broken, could you please kindly update the link.

@NithinManmohan Thanks for pointing that out. I updated the link.

Karma is only one of the five niyamas (orders or processes) that condition the universe according to Theravada Buddhism. The others include biological processes (bijaniyama), physical processes (utuniyama), psychological processes (cittaniyama), and natural or seasonal processes (dhammaniyama).
So while kamma can influence our lives, not everything is a result of kamma. The Buddha himself cautioned against trying to work out the specific workings of kamma, as it is "imponderable" and can lead to confusion and misunderstanding.
From a scientific viewpoint, diseases such as cancer or heart attack have known biological and environmental causes. For instance, cancer can be caused by genetic mutations, some of which may be inherited, while others may be triggered by environmental factors like exposure to certain chemicals or radiation. Heart attacks are often caused by lifestyle factors, such as poor diet, lack of exercise, smoking, or by conditions like hypertension or diabetes

The five niyamas are not direct teachings of the Buddha but trace their origins from the commentaries.

Please see the answer to a similar question by a Buddhist Monk (Bhante Gunaratana):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rslQg-CIQH8
Time: 16:19

The five niyamas are not direct teachings of the Buddha as discussed in this post. This answer on a similar question might be helpful.

There are several types of diseases. Diseases of mind or brain, diseases of eye, diseases of ear , diseases of tongue, diseases of nose , diseases of teeth , diseases of blood , diseases of bones, diseases of kidney , diseases of intestines, diseases of heart , diseases of liver , diseases of joints etc etc. Some diseases occur naturally due to malfunction of organ. As you grow old some diseases manifest naturally due to ageing. Ageing is inevitable because all conditionings are impermanent. There are diseases due to volitional formations or karma. A mosquito bite might result into dengue or malaria. Virus, bacteria and fungus may cause diseases like coronavirus.Are the diseases because of your karma ? On this question dependent origination is the answer. There was ignorance which led to volitional formations which led to consciousness which led to name and form which led to six sense organs which led to contact which led to feelings which led to cravings which led to clinging which led to attachments which led to becoming which led to the birth , ageing and death of disease.
Same applies to birth of earthquakes , floods and hurricanes…

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


text:
what are the characteristics of tathā?
can tathā be described as “thing-in-itself”? how about “natural state”? properly, thing-in-itself, is a Kantian invention that denotes objective existence.  is tathā a buddhist goal? is tathā liberation?  does the experience of tathā generate attachment to a self-entity? is there a useful relationship between tathā and bhava?
from https://www.learnreligions.com/tathata-or-suchness-450014
“the word tathata is sometimes used interchangeably with sunyata, or emptiness. While all phenomena are empty (sunyata) of self-essence, they are also full (tathata). They are "full" of reality itself, of everything.”

Do you mean tathata and not tatha?

@ruben2020 https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/tatha

@ruben2020 is there a difference?

I'm not a sanskrit/pali scholar, but as I understand the etymology, tatha means 'thus' or 'so'; tathata means 'it is thus/so'; tathagata meant 'he who has gone thus/so'. My impression is that 'tahtata' is more commonly used than 'tatha', but...

Tatha was discussed in this topic.  https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/48888/8157 It appears there is no definitive definition of the word

I think it's the difference between "wet" and "wetness" i.e. that tathata is 'suchness', an abstract noun.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/12727/19249

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/36599/19249

You know what dukkha is? Dukkha is when your world is wrong. You feel you are with wrong people, or in a wrong place, or you feel you are on a wrong path, or something wrong is about to happen, or you desperately want something but you know it's impossible to get, or you've irrevocably lost something or someone dear, or you feel something is wrong with you, and so on and so forth.
Your world is "not so". It is not right.
Sukha is the other extreme, it is when you feel happy or exalted. You are in the right place, with the right people, you are awesome, the world is good, everything is perfect and gonna be great! Needles to say, sukha doesn't last because this perfect picture is a bit unreal.
Tatha is the opposite of both. It's not lukewarm "in-between", it is completely orthogonal to the dukkha-sukha dimension. Tatha is when your world is "just so". It doesn't have to be rich or comfortable or something special, it just has to be without that duality of expectation vs reality. Tatha (adjective) or rather tathata (noun) is suchness without wrongness (dukkhata) but also without the rose-tinted glasses of the sukha. It's just so, without comparison.
When you get through all Buddhist practices and arrive at a point when you have no craving for something not here, no aversion to something here, and no confusion about what's here - you automatically arrive at tathata, the suchness of the moment. Get it?
That's why it is synonymous with Enlightenment or Nirvana or whatever you want to call the big goal.
Tathata is the highest bliss of peace free from comparison. Tathagata is someone who is like that.
The reason it is also synonymous with Shunyata (Emptiness) is because Shunyata is without judgment. Seeing Shunyata is seeing that all the boundaries and all the judgements are empty man-made constructs, "overlaid" on the ground reality. When you see it like that, you look without judgment, and what you see is just so, tatha.

Also see https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31420/43

The word 'bhava' in Buddhism is not necessarily unwholesome. While terms such as 'ponobbhavikā'. 'bhavatanha', 'vibhavatanha' & 'punabbhavo' (in SN 56.11) or terms such as 'kamabhava', 'rupabhava' & 'arupabhava' (in SN 12.2) are unwholesome states of mind, the suttas contain passages such as:

Khippaṁ vāyama paṇḍito bhava
Strive swiftly to become a wise person!
Dhp 238

Dukkhassantakaro bhava
Become one who makes suffering pacify!
Nibbidābahulo bhava
Become one devoted to disenchantment!
Snp 2.11

Therefore, in Abhidhamma, the term 'sabhava' is used to refer to “thing-in-itself” or "intrinsic essence/quality".
The word 'tatha' can mean 'real', as discussed in this topic.

Bhava is the cost of maintaining the self.


text:
what is arhant's experience of 3 marks?
Three characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) of existence is experienced by all however different the experience(delusion) or attitude.  How does the arhant experience them differently? I am under the impression arahant has transcended all three via maximum understanding (embracing), thus eradicating ignorance (top of Pratityasamutpada).  Is it only avoidance, aka flux, being experienced by regular ppl?   What is relationship of nirvana and 3 marks? Is it just that arhant experiences 3 dharma seals (nirvana, anatta, anicca), not three marks?

Why would arahants not experience the Three Marks of Existence?

There are Four Dhamma Seals. Thich Nhat Hanh made a mistake here, discussed here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19040/8157

The three characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) of conditioned phenomena are not experienced by all. The suttas say:

‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to take any condition as permanent. That is not possible. But it’s possible for an ordinary person to take some condition as permanent. That is possible.’ They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to take any condition as pleasant. But it’s possible for an ordinary person to take some condition as pleasant.’ They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to take anything as self. But it’s possible for an ordinary person to take something as self.’
MN 115

If fact, if no Buddha arises in the world, there is nobody that comprehends the three marks. The suttas say:

Monks, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, this aspect of the world remains the same – this stable truth, this fixed truth: All conditional things are impermanent. A Tathāgata awakens to that and realizes that. Having awakened to it and realized it, he announces it, teaches it, describes it, expresses it, reveals it, explains it, and clarifies it: ‘All conditional things are impermanent'... ‘All conditional things are unsatisfactory’... ‘All things are impersonal.’
AN 3.136

The three marks are the cause of enlightenment & Arahantship. Arahants experience the three marks 24/7, as quoted above from MN 115 and as quoted below from SN 22.59:

What do you think of this, O monks? Is form... feeling...
perception... mental formations... consciousness permanent or
impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or
satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is
it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my
self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever... past, future or present,
internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all
that... must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality,
thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets
wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception,
gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness.
Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he
is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is
emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life,
what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"
This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were
delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this
exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were
freed of defilements, without attachment.
Indeed, at that time there were six arahants in the world.

the question said the 3 marks are experienced by all, not understood by all

24/7? but what about jhana breaks?


text:
Is this able to be done?
Can you say a mantra for only people with good intentions? I said the green Tara mantra for all the sentient beings with good intentions. Is that ok, because that mantra helps you release hope for a particular outcome and bring the energy back to yourself, generating inner peace and clarity


text:
what is difference between na-nimittaggāhī and animitta?
Indriyasaṁvara is part of sīlakkhandha.  there you see this

Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā na-nimittaggāhī  hoti
nānubyañjanaggāhī.

whereas animitta cetosamādhi is part of  highest samadhi. Thats why it is after th 8th Jhana.

sabbanimittānañca amanasikāro, animittāya ca dhātuyā manasikāro.

so with this background, and for the sake of proper practice, Can someone help in knowing what is the difference between not grasping nimitta  (na nimittaggāhī) and  signless(animitaa) ?

Not grasping the signs is the continuation of the beginner's practice of guarding the doors of the senses by skilfully directing attention away from the harmful experiences. So, for example, when a male practitioner looks at a female body he makes an effort to avoid the habitual interpretation of her feminine signs such as the curves and so on. That's the not-grasping of signs.
"Grasper" and "the grasped" (Sanskt. 'grahaka'/'grahya') are the ancient terms for the subject and object of experience. So you can think of grasping in this context as objectifying the signified in relation to self, i.e."these curves make her look sexy and would be so enjoyable" and so on. That is the meaning of "grasping".
The not-grasping is usually practiced through generation of antidotes, e.g. imagining the woman's inner anatomy such as the skeleton and the content of her bowels etc. until her outer signs no longer automatically translate into lustful ideas. For a practitioner well-established in this practice such deliberate effort of applying an antidote is no longer necessary as their mind abandons the habit of grasping and simply sees the woman as-is, without objectifying her. That is the meaning of "not-grasping". It applies in a similar way to other objects and topics.
Whereas signless concentration is the culmination of the formless jhana progression when the meditator has gone beyond all semiosis and the interpretation of any and all signs is completely suspended. It's a very advanced state, a glimpse of Emptiness on the verge of Nirvana.
As you can imagine, the signless concentration is not a functional state for it is not possible to function as a sentient being without interpreting the signs. The signless concentration is not meant as something one would abide in permanently, but rather as an illustration of the limits of Samsara, and a stepping stone to the non-abiding Nirvana.

In MN 122 shows animitta samadhi not necessarily formless.
Buddha is in that attainment while conversing with people.

I think you read that into the sutta. MN 122 describes Buddha dwelling in the internal emptiness, disinclined to have long conversations with the visitors. It does not say he is literally in animitta samadhi while speaking :)

perhaps. but other than SN 40 placing animitta samadhi as the 9th attainment in place of nirodha of sañña and vedana, I see no good reason to assume animitta is a disembodied experience. Elsewhere in SN, Buddha uses animitta to escape pain from leg injury, which suggests he's still carrying on, just selectively using animitta as a pain killler.

in contrast to formless attainment of nothingness for example, animitta still cognizes consciousness arising at all 6 sense doors, just not letting any perception, mental formation become established. There's no reason why it would only do animitta on mind door and not thorugh the 5 doors of the body.

nice post. samsāra is only limited for selfish ppl

@frankk how does one make sense of sensory data without being percipient of it? sorry to turn into discussion forum..

blueego:  see MN 148 for example.  6 types of consciousness are raw sensory data. what happens after phassa contact, with vedana, sañña (perception), sankhara, are more things added on top of raw sensory data.  Nimitta is going to refer to something at a perception level,  not at the raw sensory data consciousness level

Frankk, that is correct - but I still stand by my statement that one cannot function (walk, talk, eat, understand, recognize) while in animitta samadhi - raw sensory data is not enough for these. Selectivelty ignoring some signs but not others is not animitta samadhi.

Consciousness is habit of thought, beneath consciousness is awareness.  Consciousness grasps, awareness observes, but in most people these two are fused, so in observing they grasp.
The Buddha invented a simple meditation technique, one that grows in the practitioner, called Vipassana and not dissimilar to Zen. Vipassana directly applies awareness to a subject, and this separates awareness from consciousness, little by little breaking the bonds until one day the practitioner can observe without grasping, and then they are perfectly within the moment, and to be that way they experience the true nature of being human, which for a better word is happiness.
I don't think terminology helps, it is better to consider matters in simple terms.
It is possible to look at a painting without judging it to be good or bad, without thinking any thoughts about the painting, without discussing the painting with a friend, to just look at the painting, know you are looking at it, but not thinking, 'I am looking at it.' This would be not grasping.  However, this is a skill that can be achieved early on the road to enlightenment; deep inside will be an expectation or hope that you will become enlightened through your practise and so you will not experience Nirvana, so I guess you could say that you are signless.  Keep at it, the ego is dissolved by persistence, not by understanding nor by merit.

r u saying ppl with ADHD are signless?

No, definitely did not write that, I was talking about the experiences a person would have as they practice Vipassana and develop mindfulness.


text:
What are some techniques to practice Anatta with the five aggregates?
According to the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta, the Buddha asks us to treat the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness) as "this is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself".
Since "this is not mine", "this is not I" and "this is not myself", the Buddha asks us to find 'estrangement' in the five aggregates.
Are there any further techniques that we can use to help us achieve this estrangement?
For example, in the Theravada tradition, Buddhist monks have said that if your ear hurts, think of it as 'there's an ear, and it hurts', rather than thinking "my ear hurts". So far, I have been using this method when it comes to observing my physical body.
When it comes to feelings (e.g. anger, fear), it helps me to close my eyes and observe the feelings as an outsider. As I am observing them, I can feel them going away and myself becoming calm again.
Is the above way of practicing estrangement correct? I would like to make sure that I stick to Buddha's original teachings/ theravada tradition. Thank you.

The key is to achieve a state of consciousness where this fact becomes self-evident. This is done with meditation. Advance in meditation.

Yes, the best way to anatta is serenity. Intellectual understanding does not help at all. It can help you remove noise from your life, but the real understanding comes from serenity.
When you are absolutely calm, you become an observer automatically. The second link of dependent origination is the real deal. You have to stop doing anything. This is not just for a few hours. You have to stop any kind of fabrication for days and at some point, mind becomes observer and it doesn't want to do anything because of the deep peace the mind experiences. And then it is revealed that everything keeps on going automatically as if we are watching a movie.
It feels as if we were forced to become an observer by the universe until our death. But, peace has this quality that sucks you in and you become estranged to the skandhas automatically.
Wisdom can help but wisdom without peace is useless. Serenity is the real deal which helps us experience whatever the Buddha says first hand.
I think this is just going extreme because these things(ear getting hurt, etc) will keep happening as long as the body exists. Physical pain is best to be avoided.
What the Buddha teaches is to just relax. The main teaching of the Buddha which is the Anapanasati sutta, is just depicting the relaxation after we have cut off enough of the background noises. If you have relaxed enough anatta and all the rest of it will be revealed automatically. The epitome of relaxation is nibbana.
The big skill in life is to just relax and chill. Buddha would have won Guinness world records or the Olympics in relaxation .
The ultimate technique is to not do anything, just sit like a log of wood for days. Awakening is guaranteed but most people cannot even go 10 minutes without touching their phone or PC.

Thinking 'there's an ear, and it hurts' rather than thinking "my ear hurts" is a proper method. Similarly, viewing anger & fear as merely elements of anger & fear will make them go away & make the mind calm again.
Regarding the primary question asked, the suttas contain the stock phrase:

Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ;
What is impermanent is unsatisfactory.
yaṁ dukkhaṁ tadanattā;
What is unsatisfactory is not-self.

Thus, the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta begins the wisdom inquiry with impermanence. The Buddha asks:

Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?
Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?

Therefore, here, impermanence takes a significant focus. Once impermanence is clearly discerned, it is plainly obvious that which is impermanent, subject to change by the forces of nature; subject to change beyond our control; that which also cannot be relied on for lasting happiness; certainly cannot be regarded as "This is mine" because what is impermanent can be subject to change & loss anytime.
The five aggregates are like "borrowed goods". The five aggregates do not belong to anyone. The five aggregates are just creations of nature. Therefore, the suttas contain such phrases as:

Nāyaṁ, bhikkhave, kāyo tumhākaṁ napi aññesaṁ
Mendicants, this group (kaya; of aggregates) doesn’t belong to you or
to anyone else.
SN 12.37

Therefore, bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it; when you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. What is it that is not yours? Material form is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Feeling is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Perception is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Formations are not yours. Abandon them. When you have abandoned them, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Consciousness is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time.
MN 22; also SN 35.101 regarding the six sense spheres

While direct estrangement (nibbindati), i.e., seeing the five aggregates as 'alien' (parato), can certainly occur when the five aggregates are clearly seen with a clear mind as being merely aggregates & elements (dhatu), suttas such as the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta  and Sīlavantasutta include impermanence & unsatisfactoriness because this is a natural gradual way to feel estrangement. The Sīlavantasutta says:

Sīlavatāvuso, koṭṭhika, bhikkhunā pañcupādānakkhandhā aniccato
dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato
suññato anattato yoniso manasi kātabbā.
Venerable Koṭṭhita, a virtuous monk is to wisely pay attention to the
five components of attachment as impermanent, unsatisfactory, disease, cancer, stabbing, misfortune, affliction, alien, disintegrating, empty and impersonal.

For example, in AN 3.39, when young Gotama realized he would be subject to aging, illness & death, he lost the pride (mada) associated with his youth. This is an example of estrangement arising primarily from realizing impermanence & unsatisfactoriness; which naturally reduced the pride of self in young Gotama.
Or MN 54, as summarised in MN 22, goes into detail about why sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more. When clearly seeing the unsatisfactoriness of sensual pleasures, which is related to their impermanence unable to sustain lasting happiness, an estrangement from sensual pleasures occurs. MN 22 summarises:

The Blessed One has stated that sensual pleasures provide little
gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them
is still more. With the simile of the skeleton…with the simile of the
piece of meat…with the simile of the grass torch…with the simile of
the pit of coals…with the simile of the dream…with the simile of the
borrowed goods…with the simile of fruits on a tree…with the simile of
the butcher’s knife and block…with the simile of the sword stake…with
the simile of the snake’s head, the Blessed One has stated that
sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and
despair, and that the danger in them is still more.
MN 22

Therefore, in conclusion, the Dhamma shows it is not only the perception of non-self (anatta) that generates estrangement (nibbindati). The perceptions of impermanence & unsatisfactoriness also significantly contribute.

Thank you! I'm curious about whether my practice is correct when it comes to mental feelings - which is when I close my eyes and observe the feelings as an outsider until they go away and I become calm again.

Hello. Yes, your practice sounds OK. In practice, the aggregates need to be viewed with a sense of separation from each other.  Then they can be viewed distinctly & discretely. Generally, the more gross/coarse aggregates such as the body & feelings are more easily discerned as not-self.

The method you described is correct.
Acknowledge that the ear hurts, and observe how this pain originates, changes and ceases, in a detached way.

“Bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a
painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not
weep beating his breast and become distraught. He feels one feeling—a
bodily one, not a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with a
dart, but they would not strike him immediately afterwards with a
second dart, so that the man would feel a feeling caused by one dart
only. So too, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a
painful feeling … he feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one.
“Being contacted by that same painful feeling, he harbours no aversion
towards it. Since he harbours no aversion towards painful feeling, the
underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling does not lie
behind this. Being contacted by painful feeling, he does not seek
delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because the instructed
noble disciple knows of an escape from painful feeling other than
sensual pleasure. Since he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure,
the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling does not lie
behind this. He understands as it really is the origin and the passing
away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of
these feelings. Since he understands these things, the underlying
tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant
feeling does not lie behind this.
“If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a
painful feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. This,
bhikkhus, is called a noble disciple who is detached from birth,
aging, and death; who is detached from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
displeasure, and despair; who is detached from suffering, I say.
SN 36.6

Thank you! Do you know if the above sutta applies to mental feelings as well - such as when feeling angry, sad etc? I'm curious about whether my practice is correct when it comes to mental feelings - which is when I close my eyes and observe the feelings as an outsider until they go away and I become calm again.


text:
What is the ninth level of consciousness?
I'm doing a little research to understand what the ninth level of consciousness is.
I learned this concept from an explanation of a saying, namely 'on ninth cloud'.
The only information I was able to find refers to Soka Buddhism.
Can you tell me if this concept is also present in the Mahayana or Vayrayana translation? Or even Theravada or Zen, as long as it's not Soka.

Originally, per Pali (Theravada) Suttas, there were only six consciousness taught by the Buddha, as follows:

And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.
SN 12.2

What is translated above as 'intellect consciousness' includes the consciousness that knows/experiences liberation & Nibbana.
Then later, Mahayana introduced another two consciousness, namely, the defiled (kliṣṭamanovijñāna) & the storehouse (ālāyavijñāna). Wikipedia says:

This eighth consciousness is said to store the impressions (vāsanāḥ) of previous experiences, which form the seeds (bīja) of future karma in this life and in the next after rebirth.

This doctrinal obsession with 'consciousness' obviously came about as Buddhism, including Theravada, developed an obsession with reincarnation. For example, within the Pali Suttas, there is later-day commentary called the Patisambiddhamagga, which introduced the phrase 'relinking consciousness' ('patisandhi vinnana') into Buddhism:

275 . Purimakammabhavasmiṁ moho avijjā, āyūhanā saṅkhārā, nikanti taṇhā, upagamanaṁ upādānaṁ, cetanā bhavo. Ime pañca dhammā purimakammabhavasmiṁ idha paṭisandhiyā paccayā.
In being-as-action before [this life] there is delusion, which is ignorance; there is accumulation, which is formations; there is attachment, which is craving; there is adoption, which is clinging; there is volition, which is being; thus these five ideas in being-as-action before [this life] are conditions for rebirth-linking here [in the present life].
Idha paṭisandhi viññāṇaṁ, okkanti nāmarūpaṁ, pasādo āyatanaṁ, phuṭṭho phasso, vedayitaṁ vedanā. Ime pañca dhammā idhupapattibhavasmiṁ purekatassa kammassa paccayā.
Here [in the present life] there is rebirth-linking, which is consciousness; there is precipitation [in the womb], which is mentality-materiality; there is sensitivity, which is base [for contact]; there is what is touched, which is contact; there is what is felt, which is feeling; thus these five ideas in being-as-rearising here have their conditions in action (kamma) done in the past.
Obvious inaccurate translation by Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli

When the above subject matter from the Patisambiddhamagga is read & examined in its completeness, there appears no explicit meaning of past & future lives, which is probably why Buddhists monks & scholars rarely, if ever, teach this material from the Patisambiddhamagga. However, later in Theravada, paṭisandhi viññāṇaṁ became another type of consciousness rather than the reunion (paṭisandhi) of consciousness (viññāṇaṁ) with past action/becoming (kammabhava). The fact the term "paṭisandhiyā" is first found above without reference to consciousness shows "paṭisandhi" is not a type of consciousness. All the above appears to say is a present consciousness reunites with a past kamma/becoming, just as a present consciousness today may reunite with a memory & emotion of an act that was performed yesterday.
In addition, what convolutes the matter further is the Theravada Abhidhamma started using the term 'citta' to refer to 'consciousness'. This may have influenced the Mahayana to create the terms defiled (kliṣṭamanovijñāna) & the storehouse (ālāyavijñāna) consciousness.
In other words, from the terminology of the original Pali Suttas, there is no such things as defiled & storehouse consciousness. In the Pali Suttas, there are described five aggregates, namely, materiality, feeling, perception, mental formations & consciousness. What Mahayana calls 'defiled consciousness' equates with 'anusaya' (underlying tendencies) and what Mahayana calls 'storehouse consciousness' is not related to consciousness because consciousness does not store defilements, emotions & kamma. Defilements, kammic imprints ('vipaka') in Pali Sutta Buddhism are included in the mental formations aggregate rather than in the consciousness aggregate.
Then it appears Nichiren Buddhism (now Soka Gakkai) came along with its nine consciousness. In original Pali Sutta Buddhism, this ninth consciousness would simply be the purified intellect consciousness, however, Pali Sutta Buddhism most commonly uses the word 'citta' ('mind-heart') for its descriptions of purification & liberation rather than 'vinnana' ('consciousness').
In summary, the Patisambiddhamagga-come-Visuddhimagga, Mahayana & Nichiren did not really add anything to the original Pali Sutta Buddhism. All they did was rename already existing concepts, and particularly started using the term 'consciousness' ('vinnana') for sankhara (mental formations) and citta (mind-heart) related phenomena.
The word 'vinnana' ('consciousness') refers to 'knowing'. Its does not refer to thinking, kamma, defilement, emotions, feelings & the like. Consciousness only knows. It does not store. It has no tendencies. It has no wisdom. What develops wisdom is the intellect or 'mano'.
But, it seems, because the later Buddhists became obsessed with reincarnation, even though Buddhism teaches there is no soul, they used 'consciousness' as a pseudo-soul; therefore invented their relinking, underlying & storehouse consciousness that travels magically from life to life.
Even though the Buddha explicitly taught there can be no arising of consciousness without sense organs (MN 38), without the other aggregates (SN 22.53), without a mind-body (SN 12.67), the later-day Buddhists created/invented their own ideologies about a consciousness that magically travels around in the vacuum of outer space from life to life; propelled by its stored defilements.


text:
What are the five grounds for asking questions?
According to scripture, all those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations. Which five?

On Asking Questions
Pañhapucchā Sutta  (AN 5:165)

“One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One
asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with
greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a
question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question
with this thought, ‘If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
good. If not, then I will answer correctly (for him).’


text:
What is spiritual aspect of art in Buddhism?
The Tibetan monks draw elaborate and intricate sand mandalas, as well as very complex thangka paintings. There is calligraphy in Zen Buddhism. I want to ask what is the spiritual aspect of art that these monks are working towards. No such art is practiced in Theravada Buddhism. How does art help us move toward Nirvana? Where does art fit in the four noble truths and the eight fold path?

It's an interesting question and I don't know an answer from a Buddhist source.
One insight may be that, I read that an fMRI of someone concentrating on a task (including a task like "art", I imagine) shows less brain activity than usual -- more specifically, activity in fewer regions of the brain.
So, you might think that concentrating on a task implies a lot of activity, but it's somewhat the opposite, maybe its "fewer distractions", i.e. when distractions have subsided.
I read that for an activity which requires concentration (i.e. writing software) the practitioner takes some time, many minutes, to get in the zone:

(idiomatic) In a mental state of focused concentration on the performance of an activity, in which one dissociates oneself from distracting or irrelevant aspects of one's environment

There's a description I liked in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (emphases in the following quote are mine):

Well, those were the commonest setbacks I can think of: out-of-sequence reassembly, intermittent failure and parts problems. But
although setbacks are the commonest gumption traps they’re only the external cause of gumption loss. Time now to consider some of
the internal gumption traps that operate at the same time.
As the course description of gumptionology indicated, this internal part of the field can be broken down into three main types of
internal gumption traps: those that block affective understanding, called "value traps"; those that block cognitive understanding, called
"truth traps"; and those that block psychomotor behavior, called "muscle traps." The value traps are by far the largest and the most
dangerous group.
Of the value traps, the most widespread and pernicious is value rigidity. This is an inability to revalue what one sees because of
commitment to previous values. In motorcycle maintenance, you must rediscover what you do as you go. Rigid values make this
impossible.
The typical situation is that the motorcycle doesn’t work. The facts are there but you don’t see them. You’re looking right at them, but
they don’t yet have enough value. This is what Phædrus was talking about. Quality, value, creates the subjects and objects of the world.
The facts do not exist until value has created them. If your values are rigid you can’t really learn new facts.
This often shows up in premature diagnosis, when you’re sure you know what the trouble is, and then when it isn’t, you’re stuck. Then
you’ve got to find some new clues, but before you can find them you’ve got to clear your head of old opinions. If you’re plagued with
value rigidity you can fail to see the real answer even when it’s staring you right in the face because you can’t see the new answer’s
importance.
The birth of a new fact is always a wonderful thing to experience. It’s dualistically called a "discovery" because of the presumption that
it has an existence independent of anyone’s awareness of it. When it comes along, it always has, at first, a low value. Then, depending
on the value-looseness of the observer and the potential quality of the fact, its value increases, either slowly or rapidly, or the value
wanes and the fact disappears.
The overwhelming majority of facts, the sights and sounds that are around us every second and the relationships among them and
everything in our memory...these have no Quality, in fact have a negative quality. If they were all present at once our consciousness
would be so jammed with meaningless data we couldn’t think or act. So we preselect on the basis of Quality, or, to put it Phædrus’
way, the track of Quality preselects what data we’re going to be conscious of, and it makes this selection in such a way as to best
harmonize what we are with what we are becoming.
What you have to do, if you get caught in this gumption trap of value rigidity, is slow down...you’re going to have to slow down
anyway whether you want to or not...but slow down deliberately and go over ground that you’ve been over before to see if the things
you thought were important were really important and to—well—just stare at the machine. There’s nothing wrong with that. Just live
with it for a while. Watch it the way you watch a line when fishing and before long, as sure as you live, you’ll get a little nibble, a little
fact asking in a timid, humble way if you’re interested in it. That’s the way the world keeps on happening. Be interested in it.
At first try to understand this new fact not so much in terms of your big problem as for its own sake. That problem may not be as big as
you think it is. And that fact may not be as small as you think it is. It may not be the fact you want but at least you should be very sure
of that before you send the fact away. Often before you send it away you will discover it has friends who are right next to it and are
watching to see what your response is. Among the friends may be the exact fact you are looking for.
After a while you may find that the nibbles you get are more interesting than your original purpose of fixing the machine. When that
happens you’ve reached a kind of point of arrival. Then you’re no longer strictly a motorcycle mechanic, you’re also a motorcycle
scientist, and you’ve completely conquered the gumption trap of value rigidity.

Another is just that, I wonder why something like a garden or a rock garden is attractive. I don't know why this is so, but I find I like a clean and tidy home -- with the emphasis on "clean and tidy" rather than "home" because that's true of other places too -- like class-rooms, other people's homes, offices, public spaces, etc. (and presumably monasteries). It's hard to describe the experience, maybe aesthetic, maybe some temporary "peace of mind" at least relatively. I think you see that in some of the Zen stories: sweeping the floor, washing the bowl after eating, being tidy with them when you take your sandals off.
As for "doing" art I used to find with some activities -- physical exercise for example -- that even if I didn't always like "doing" it (the 'present' tense), I liked "having done" it (the 'perfect' tense). So I was reluctant to start the "work" sometimes, but did because I knew I liked the result of working. Maybe later I found myself enjoying the activity itself -- possibly when developing some mastery. I'm told there's a "sweet spot" for an activity to be enjoyable or engaging, including for children -- it should be neither too difficult ("impossible") nor too easy ("boring"). I suspect this is "relishing" of a type which classic Buddhism warns against as being addictive, but what can you do? Maybe check that the activity is relatively harmless at least or beneficial in some way.

i just bought the book, but i can't wait. is gumption good or bad?

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Agumption It's effective (or perhaps it's a resource, like "fuel"). In the context of the book iirc it's associated with enthusiasm, a willingness to engage in the task; its antonym might be "dis-spirited". I hope you enjoy the book. I don't read much any more but I remember it as one of my favourites, I bought it to read on an airplane and it was the best part of the trip.

Art is usually either devotional (as in Buddha/Bodhisattva images), protective (as in dharanis or sutras set to music, if you include musical arts), or meditational (as in Enso or sand mandalas). Theravadins do have some art art: stupas, statues, architecture, even tattoos (Sak Yant). Does art have a place in strict Theravada life and adherence to teachings in early texts? No, not really, and visual arts could be viewed as idle amusement.
But other traditions don't use the Theravada Vinaya, and have incorporated the practice of visual art as a meditational method. I can't speak in detail for the Vajrayana, but in Chan/Zen, (almost) anything can be Chan, including things that might be perceived from the outside as wrong speech (this is prominent in Linji/Rinzai!), wrong livelihood (monks? farming? the Buddha never said anything about that!), and so on.
In the case of enso (painting a circle, in Japaneze Zen), the purpose is to attain samadhi through the eventual realization that thinking too much about making a circle won't get you anywhere, and you need to let go of mind. Does it work? I have no idea, I'm terrible at painting and good Chinese/Japanese brushes are expensive. But it's a practice that evolved over centuries, so I have some respect for it. As for other calligraphy, it's not really a vital part of any Mahayana schools.

Thank you for the answer

Ajanta Caves is early Budddhist art.

According to Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Cave 12 is an early stage Hinayana (Theravada) monastery (14.9 × 17.82 m) from the 2nd to 1st century BCE.
The earliest group consists of caves 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15A. The murals in these caves depict stories from the Jatakas.
Wikipedia

Four deers with one head = four noble truths

Thank you for your answer DD. I am particularly looking for an answer about how I can incorporate Art as my meditation practice.


text:
Reference request: Where is this this story about a pair of shoes, a stupa, and virtuous actions?
A teacher told us this story about virtuous actions that goes something like this:

A person passes by a stupa when it is raining. In order to protect the stupa from the rain, they remove their shoes and put them over the stupa.
A second person later passes by the same stupa. They see the shoes on the stupa and remove them, thinking that is no place for dirty shoes.

Conclusion:
Both people performed a virtuous action because of their wholesome intentions.
Does anyone know where this is from? I believe the teacher mentioned it was from the sutras.

This doesn't sound like it's from any of the suttas/agamas, and I also don't recognize it from the major Mahayana sutras. Do you know what tradition or lineage the teacher was from? That might help narrow it down.

Maybe it's just a story. The teacher is from the Nyingma/Rimé tradition. He studied with Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

Words of my Perfect Teacher by Patrul Rinpoche Padmakara ed. pg. 188 "There once was a man who saw a little clay tsa-tsa statue lying on the ground by the road. "If it stays there," he thought, "the rain wil soon ruin it; I'd better do something about it." So he covered it with an old leather shoe sole that had been left lying nearby. Another person, passing the same spot, thought to himself, "It's not right to have an old shoe sole covering that tsa-tsa," and so he took it off. As the fruit of their good intentions, both the one who covered the tsa-tsa and the one who removed the covering inherited kingdoms in their next lives. (Hope that helps).


text:
What does discourse AN 9.37 describe?
From AN 9.37:

Ven. Ānanda said, “It’s amazing, friends, it’s astounding, how the
Blessed One who knows & sees, the worthy one, rightly self-awakened,
has attained & awakened to an opening [in a confining place]1 for the
purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation,
for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the
right method, & for the realization of unbinding, where the eye will
be, and those forms, and yet one will not be sensitive to that
dimension; where the ear will be, and those sounds… where the nose
will be, and those aromas… where the tongue will be, and those
flavors… where the body will be, and those tactile sensations, and yet
one will not be sensitive to that dimension.”

Why does the passage omit the sixth-sense sphere, intellect-idea?  Usually the use of ellipsis for repetitive text, but not in this discourse.  Does this discourse describe intra-jhana or a state after jhana?
As an adjunct, MN43 says this about the state after cessation of perception and feeling:

Friend, what is the difference between a dead body and a bhikkhu
attained to the cessation of perceptions and feelings? Friend, in a
dead body the bodily determination (in and out breath) has ceased and
is appeased The verbal determination (thinking and pondering) has
ceased and is appeased The mental determination (feeling and
perception) has ceased and is appeased. Vitality is exhausted. The
heat has extinguished, and the mental faculties have broken up.
Of the bhikkhu attained to the cessation of perceptions and feelings,
the bodily determintion has ceased and is appeased. The verbal
determination has ceased and is appeased. The mental determination has
ceased is appeased. Vitality is not exhausted. The heat is not
extinguished. The mental faculties are very clear. Friend, this is
the difference between a dead body and of one attained to the
cessation of perceptions and feelings.

If AN 9:37 is not describing jhana, does MN.43 describe a state different than AN 9.37?

The passage in AN 9.37 omits the sixth sense sphere because the sixth sense sphere is conscious/percipient of the immaterial spheres:

[Ven. Udāyin:] “When not sensitive to that dimension, my friend, one
is percipient of what?”
[Ven. Ānanda:] “There is the case where, with the complete
transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, with the disappearance
of perceptions of resistance, and not attending to perceptions of
multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ one enters & remains in
the dimension of the infinitude of space. Percipient in this way, one
is not sensitive to that dimension [i.e, the dimensions of the five
physical senses].
And further, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the
infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one
enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.
Percipient in this way, too, one is not sensitive to that dimension.
And further, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the
infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one
enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. Percipient in this
way, too, one is not sensitive to that dimension.

MN 43 does not say: "The mental faculties are very clear". When MN 43 uses the term 'faculties', it is referring the five physical sense faculties, as follows:

Friend, there are these five faculties each with a separate range, a
separate domain, and they do not experience one another's range &
domain: the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the
tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty.
Friend, what can be known with the purified intellect-consciousness
divorced from the five [sense] faculties? Friend, with the purified intellect-consciousness divorced from the
five faculties the dimension of the infinitude of space can be known
[as] 'infinite space.' The dimension of the infinitude of
consciousness can be known [as] 'infinite consciousness.' The
dimension of nothingness can be known [as] 'There is nothing.'
But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided, & his [five sense] faculties are exceptionally clear.
MN 43

Also, the translation "clear" sounds misleading because it gives the impression the five sense faculties are lucid & conscious. The Pali is vippasanna, which can mean 'pure', in the sense of 'clean', rather than 'lucid' or 'sinless'.

so to be clear, you are saying AN9:37 is describing jhana, and not a post-jhana state

No. There are only four jhanas, the 1st with vitakka, vicara, piti, sukha, ekaggata, 2nd, 3rd & 4th. AN 9.37 is describing arupa spheres, which occur after the four jhanas. In common speech, AN 9.37 is describing the 5th, 6th & 7th 'jhana'; even though they are not called 'jhana' in the suttas.

that's what i thought but i was reading as if it was post-jhana....


text:
Feeling scared/ having aversion to looking at "pretty" women
I have been doing buddhist practices and trying to keep the precepts for a few months, after an intensive retreat. I have been noticing recently that I have automatically started to avoid looking at any women that are potentially attractive. This is almost instinctive and I go out of my way to avoid looking at them as much as possible. Also, I can see that I do not find most women attractive now, like in the sense of having that primal urge to have sex with them. Instead there is a subtle judgement like 'Hey, she looks pretty' but mostly without any deeper lust. While watching porn (I do it compulsively unfortunately) I have just a few moments of actual lust during the whole session, and for the most part, even the prettiest women there have stopped appealing sexually to me. But there are some women though, in real life, for who I am like "MY GOD she is too beautiful!" and I feel that strong sexual urge (and suffering along with it) unlike with all others.
I want to ask, is this normal and expected part of the practice? Not that I am complaining - I am pretty happy with it tbh coz when I don't jerk off for a few days I feel my mind stronger, calmer, happier and have energy to get stuff done. I am worried though if my avoidance is rooted in aversion to feel the sexual urge and the suffering?  If this is indeed good, are there any other practical tips (other than meditation) on how to take this further - to remove all lust- and the slavery that it carries?
Kindly give your insights. Please do not hold back on technical aspects, give me as accurate and precise answer as possible as I understand the formal terminology of the sutras etc. Any responses are appreciated.
Thank you

I answered similar question earlier: Lust - How Can it be Overcome?

Ajahn Chan, the famous monk of the forest tradition, once did a practice to avoid looking at any woman. When the practice ended and he took a look at the first woman; he described it as deeply disorienting. He realized then that denying sensual desires (and avoiding sensual pleasures) is not the answer.
At the core of the Buddhism, is always the question: is there something better? This was the question that drove the Buddha to give up a life of wealth, luxury and comfort into the rugged, uncertain and austere life of a renunciant. It was also the reason that the Buddha showed Nanda that there is a better existence then the one with that lovely Sakyan girl. In the past, the rich and powerful seek out younger and fresher faces by keeping harems. In modern days, we have serial divorces and marriages instead.
There is another thing that any Truth-seeker could not and should not ignore; the reality that awaits us all i.e. old age, illness and death. There is nothing wrong with sex, masturbation or any sensual pleasures in general. It just that they do not endure. Why deny ourselves the possibility that there is something better....more enduring? So let's keep searching and practicing because we deserve better.

Thank you for your comment. The story that you linked was very fascinating. I however, differ on the first part.- when I look at women, I do not get disoriented. In fact, I do not feel that they are beautiful, most of them anyways.  Today I looked at advertisement with a woman who would be very attractive to me earlier, and I consciously looked at it, but I did not feel that attraction. And on this was my original query.

I have edited with a link on Ajahn Chah's practice then and insights on lust as described by Ajahn Amaro. Watching some toddlers learning to eat solid foods, there will be times when some will suck for ages on their food until all the sweet and savoury flavours are extracted. Then, they will spit out the tasteless mess to the horrors of their parents. That makes me realize that chewing is tough for very young children because their jaw muscles are not well-developed. Learning to chew properly and swallowing solid foods is actually quite traumatic for them.

Fast forward as adults, we are so acclimatised that eating is a joy. We look forward to various textures like crunchiness, crispiness or smoothness. Is physical attraction tramuatic? Where does the discomfort arises? When your heart's desire is finally fulfilled, is there a disappointment because it didn't tick off all the boxes? Like the jaw is slightly out of shape or the nose is a bit crooked. All conditioned realities has their limitations, the Buddha pointed out. The biggest being they don't endure. He also pointed out there is a reality that is unconditioned and lasting.

Thx, I agree with what you say. But is there a way to avoid burning in desire when all one’s mind sees is that the object of desire is the source of ultimate everlasting pleasure? (I know of course there is a way out but being in the mire I do not see it)

I don't think there's any shortcuts. Distance and time apart from the objects of desire is necessary. It is hard to deconstruct something when the mind is overcome with desires in its presence. The coolness from time and distance apart allows the mind to see things that would not be obvious in the heat of the moment. E.g. it obviously didn't last the last time, how can it last in the next round? Or how can it be the ultimate pleasure when the mind keeps looking at improving and bettering it?

However, we may still succumb to our lust and in such cases, a monk once advised that we should continue to be mindful. Through mindfulness, one gets to see the mind trying to block and ignore aspects of reality that are unattractive thus hindering it from enjoying its pleasures to the fullness. One sees the mind only obssessed with the attractive parts. That's when we see the mind playing tricks on itself, twisting reality to suit itself.

One should also bear in mind there are better alternatives that have less drawbacks. And they will only appear to us if our mind are opened to their possibilities as the Buddha showed Nanda. Imagined a village where everyone eats cardboard from the day they are born till the day they die. Suppose someone give the villagers some bread, it is unlikely that they will go back to eating cardboard again unless they have no choice.

The noble disciples of the Buddha and the later Ajahns like Ajahn Chah also struggled with their lust and desires. They ultimately succeeded in achieving something better through their resourcefulness, effort and unwavering attitude, inspiring qualities that we too possess. If they can do it, therefore, so can we. And even if we don't succeed fully, looking back, we will still be way better than before. With Metta.

Thank you for the insights. I agree with everything you say. What I gather from the above is: time and distance allows one to see more clearly. Also mindfulness is helpful in deconstructing the experience and to see the blocked parts of experience. I think if we can concentrate hard on seeing clearly the arising and falling off the lust and the truth of its pleasure involved (unsatisfactory and temporary ) then one may get free of the bondage of lust.

If pornography is being compulsively watched, this is due to sexual lust.
Watching pornography is the opposite of practicing loving-kindness & compassion because pornography depicts inappropriate, harmful & often abuse behaviours by & towards women.
In the Buddhist scriptures, an ex-prostitute enlightened nun criticized her previous behaviour of merely exposing her private parts, let alone her having sex with men for money (Thig 5.2).
Snp 1.6 says it is a downfall for a lay follower to debauch himself with prostitutes (which would include pornographic performers).
If there is loving-kindness & compassion, women can be looked at. In fact, my impression is women appreciate being looked at in appropriate ways and do not appreciate being ignored.
Everyday I see & often talk to many different beautiful women from all around the world, often in bikinis. I am celibate & do not masturbate. These beautiful women do not adversely concern me. I can do this because I understand sexual promiscuity & non-commitment brings harm & suffering. I cultivate a mind of non-harming towards women.

Thank you for your comment. I agree with some parts, but I disagree with the black and white conclusions like compulsiveness implies lust, pornography is opposite of loving kindness, what women care and appreciate etc. Many compulsive acts are just compulsive, and without any desire…, not to say there are no compulsive acts with underlying addictions. The other part is women, appreciating being looked in loving kindness manner.- I do not care. What I care is my spiritual benefit, which entails benefit of others, but not people pleasing.

SN 35.127 has some advice. It's given to a king and describes monks' behaviour, so maybe it's for everyone.

Think of women as your mother, your sister, your daughter -- depending on their age.
I don't know how this comparison is understood by different people who have different relationships with their family -- but again perhaps it's useful to everyone.

Deconstruct the form -- instead of thinking of it as an attractive whole, reflect that it's skin and bones, blood and organs and waste and so on.

Don't get caught up in the "signs" (which I think means the 'sign' of "long hair" for example implying "an attractive woman").

They're presented in sequence -- the first is first, the second is used when the first is insufficient, etc.

Thank you, this is very helpful!

I think it often can be more helpful to deliberately set your intention rather than reflecting on the intention of past actions. I’m not saying you should never reflect on/be honest about the motives underlying your actions, but Intention is one of the dimensions of the Eightfold Path.
It’s appropriate to develop the resolve to not look at women in a way that would likely make them feel uncomfortable, not look at them for the purpose of gratifying an urge, etc.. Consider spending time dwelling on that. Likewise, consider spending time developing your commitment to not deny/repress desires.
Someone can spend a lot of time wondering if that glance they just avoided making was repressing desire or appropriate modesty, but if we lack clear recollection of the event and/or have a rigid belief about our self, we could spend a lot of time spinning our wheels in proliferation and not gain any insight. (But we can continually cultivate our intentions).
I wanted to be sure to answer the question completely first, but also gently offer the suggestion: if you believe your porn watching is compulsive, perhaps that should be a higher priority? Sometimes tackling small things first is a good strategy, but other times something is a “key log” (The one log in a river that, when removed, will relieve the log-jam and allow everything to flow freely again).
Hope this is somehow helpful.

There is a practice of guarding the sense doors. This is how the Buddha describes as translated by Bhante Sujato. MN 107

When they have ethical conduct, the Realized One guides them further: ‘Come, mendicant, guard your sense doors. When you see a sight with your eyes, don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of sight were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of covetousness and displeasure would become overwhelming. For this reason, practice restraint, protect the faculty of sight, and achieve restraint over it. When you hear a sound with your ears … When you smell an odor with your nose … When you taste a flavor with your tongue … When you feel a touch with your body … When you know a thought with your mind, don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of mind were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of covetousness and displeasure would become overwhelming. For this reason, practice restraint, protect the faculty of mind, and achieve its restraint.’

Ajahn Nyanamoli describes guarding the sense doors by remembering the context around what you are experiencing. For example that this is not for your benefit, it is for your harm, craving is painful, lust is painful and so on. Whatever works for you.
But as the sutta itself says, "don't get caught up in the features and details". As I understand it, if you see an attractive person don't start noticing the shape of their leg, the way their eyes look etc. Stay with the big picture, not the details.
Bhante Sudhaso said when he was around one extremely attractive woman with bad teeth, he focused  on her ugly teeth.


text:
how to deal with dogmatic people
Quick question.
How do I deal with the kind of people who do not know THE first thing about a topic and they would pretend as if they are experts in it; and impose their opinions on the conversation while ignoring mine even when I am indeed an actual expert there.
Eg: my father will assert things about physics (sometimes absurd and laughable), which is high school level at best. When I tell him calmly "the correct thing is actually not this because so and so... ", he refuse to believe/listen ( doesn't even inquire into it). This is even though I am a current PhD student, in physics no less. Similarly a cousin and some friends, not knowing a thing in that field try to be experts when I actually for a fact know those things. This kind of gets me mad and I become passive aggressive.
What is a way to deal with these people and avoid bad karma simultaneously. In general we are supposed observe the feelings, but then physically, am I to always remain quiet? If I don't, there's no way I don't get subtly angry. Other option is to stop hanging out with people like that? But then isn't that coming from aversion - we are aiming for harmony and remaining undisturbed in the face of things rather than avoiding them? This is one of those things where I am quite unsure of the path. Please give insights and practical tips, other than 'just meditate more' - that I know.
Any responses are appreciated,
Thank you

Before I get to the main question, let me ferret out the parent/child relationship issue. Parent/child relationships always have a power aspect to them. Children (even as adults) aim to establish themselves as independent, self-empowered social equals to their parents; parents always want to have influence and control over their child, because it is the social role of a parent to keep their child safe and good and happy. It's worst in the teen years, but it's always a struggle for both sides. Sometimes this boils into ego-conflict — a parent unwilling to give up their authority because it's locked in as self-identity; a child pushing aggressively to break ties that are completely natural — and that's unfortunate. It's worth remembering (as a child) that part of your parents' understanding of you is years of you as a babbling bumbling bundle of reckless energy that they had to shape and control, and that this view is what you have to build on, not something you can wish away.
It puts things in perspective. Your dad wants to show that he still has the has the status that kept your family safe and whole all those years, and all your 'book learning' doesn't compare. And that deserves compassion and respect. If he blusters in on your area of expertise, be good natured: say something like: "That's not actually true, but I love you anyway". Handling it with good nature is what will convince him (eventually) that you are an adult, and that he doesn't have to worry so much.
As far as the more general question (about dogmatic people you are not related to), good nature still helps, though telling them you love them might be counter-productive. Sometimes being good-natured means explaining things calmly and professionally (i.e., without engaging in argument); sometimes it means making the conversation light and silly (without making them the but of the joke); sometimes it means listening quietly without judging. But the idea is to validate them as independent, self-empowered adults (just as they wish their parents would) without allowing them to slip the container of reality. It isn't always easy, granted...

Very insightful, great answer!! Thanks for writing this, I think this exactly is what I was looking for :)

Why physics?
Why are you talking about physics? I don't remember that I have ever talked about physics with anyone (except perhaps briefly with a cousin who is a physicist). I suspect perhaps you (you plural, i.e. "you with them") shouldn't talk about that. If I were to guess why you (plural) are talking about it, I would guess that they are because of something to do with you (singular). Did you start that conversation somehow? When I was young and people used to ask me "What do you study?" and I replied "Maths", no-one would ever try to pretend to talk Maths with me, that would end the conversation and we'd talk about something else.
Why disputes?
Canonically, Buddhism warns that Māna is a cause of disputes:

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

This answer too explains that an element is "comparison". IMO an example of comparison is, "I know more about physics than they do." Even when that comparison is "true" that's not enough to imply that it's "right".
I remember when I was about 14 I was scornful of my Mum at the dinner-table because I knew more about chemistry than she did (because I was learning it in school), which was of course incredibly rude of me and wrong (i.e. morally wrong even if not factually untrue), a mistake.
What is right?
There's a summary of what "right speech" means on this page: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/index.html.
Can you teach?
There's some advice in the suttas about whether, when, and who can teach Buddhist doctrine -- maybe similar conditions apply to teaching physics too.
There are several conditions, I think one is that the audience must be willing and attentive, listening. I think another says that it's difficult to be a teacher because the teacher should do it without a feeling a superiority which is harmful to the teacher and the students (sorry but I'm not able to find the little sutta which says this so I'm paraphrasing from memory).
How do I deal with the kind of people who do not know THE first thing about a topic?
I'm not sure I can answer that, like I said I'm not sure I've met them. I can only guess at why they're doing that and my only, uninformed guess was that it's an ego thing, a reaction to a perception that their view is inferior. Why else would they talk about physics of all things?
For example perhaps your father deserves respect for some reason, instead you scorn his "high-school at best" assertions about physics.
Where I went to school we started to specialize at the beginning of high-school, and if I remember right I started/chose to study Maths and sciences -- instead of e.g. English and history -- partly because that was a different field from my own father's.
We didn't compete. He was very knowledgeable about a lot of subjects and I didn't try lecture him. Or maybe I did a bit because he kindly said sometimes that I was "good at explaining things". But to me "high-school-level physics" means Newtonian mechanics, and therefore calculus, and therefore doesn't belong outside the classroom! :-) In fact he did National Service (compulsory military service) and trained as a gunnery (artillery) officer, even for that I assume that in practice they used tables of pre-calculated range/elevation figures rather than calculus.
Other option is to stop hanging out with people like that?
That sounds kind of harsh to me, an over-reaction: i.e. not hanging out with your dad, because he "doesn't even inquire into" PhD-level Physics.
Maybe change the subject, find some common ground, discuss physics only elsewhere i.e. with colleagues?
Do you maybe feel belittled somehow, is displaying your superior knowledge of physics an ego-defense mechanism?
Maybe you might find the link (above) to descriptions of "Right speech" helpful -- good to know as an ideal.
Another useful set of descriptions is the brahmaviharas which are said to be the right attitudes to have towards people.
But then isn't that coming from aversion - we are aiming for harmony and remaining undisturbed in the face of things rather than avoiding them?
Yes at least one person on this site explains that this is a role of "ethics" -- including right speech, right action, and right livelihood -- to promote harmony and avoid inter-personal conflict (see for example this answer).

Thanks.
First paragraph: no I do not start conversations like that mostly because I think academic knowledge don’t do true good to people. Usually they start or asset comments on things related on those areas first. I in fact try not to talk and end the conversation quick coz it takes too much effort in making people understand things.


text:
Is it alright to have a leather jacket and still consider myself a Buddhist?
Ok well I got the leather jacket years before I started to follow Buddhism. Would it be alright to still have the coat, or do I have to give it to a friend, or someone else?

Related but not exactly the same question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/36636/what-do-buddhists-think-of-leather and Dhamma Dhatu's answer includes a scriptural reference.
Additionally I would add that from a purely ethical and ecological standpoint, continuing to use your old leather jacket rather than buying an imitation leather one (or any other new one) prevents fast-fashion waste, especially since a good leather jacket can last for decades.

In MN 55, the Buddha did not prohibit the eating of meat. This scripture concludes a monk cannot accept an offering of meat for food if it is known or suspected an animal was specifically killed for the explicit purpose of feeding a monk or monks.
Browsing the internet, my impression is leather is basically a by-product of the cattle & other animal meat & dairy industries. While animal rights organizations discuss the differences between leather as a 'by-product' vs a 'co-product', my impression is, in most cases, animals are not killed primarily for their skins. This situation appears similar to the principle the Buddha established in MN 55, where meat is not forbidden for monks when an animal is not killed specifically for monks.
In summary, while the Buddha exhorted laypeople to follow the Five Precepts, the 1st of which is undertaking the training to refrain from killing living beings; and while the scriptures also say carrying on a business of animals for slaughter is wrong livelihood for the business owner; the Buddha was silent about the finer details of how ordinary people should acquire food.
While I do not explicitly support the slaughter of animals, the problem with the arguments of animals rights activists is if there was no meat industry, the vast majority of cattle & similar animals would not even exist. The meat industry is a secular matter and not anything related to Buddhism.
In conclusion, it appears having a leather jacket would not be against Buddhist principles.


text:
What does Bhikkhu Bodhi mean by "mind objects"?
From the Six Sets of Six MN 148.
English

Dependent on the mind and mind objects, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling; with feeling as condition there is craving.

Pali

manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṁ, tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā.

Bhante Sujato translates it as "thoughts"

Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and thoughts. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving.

But wouldn't mind objects be a superset of thoughts?
In addition to thoughts, what else are mind objects? Why did Bhikkhu Bodhi choose "mind object" as his translation?

BB's MN 148 is from 1995, appearing to be the completion of Bhikkhu Nanamoli's work. Here, I assume Bhikkhu Nanamoli correctly translated the Pali 'dhamme' as 'mind objects', which means sense objects that can only be known/sensed/contacted by the mind (mano; manañca) sense base. These mind objects include:

Feelings (vedana)
Perceptions (sanna)
Mental formations (sankhara; emotions & thoughts)
Consciousness itself
Insight knowledges/laws of nature
Liberation
Nibbana

In short, the word 'dhamme' in Pali is used because it includes objects apart from mental phenomena (nama-dhamma). It also includes object that are not mental phenomena, such as the Laws of Nature and Nibbana. Ud 8.1 says Nibbana is an 'ayatana' ('sense object'; translated at the link as 'sphere'). The Truth/Laws of Nature are described in SN 12.20 & AN 3.136.
Unfortunately, based on references in his footnotes to discussions with Ajahn Brahmali, it appears BB later came under the insidious influence of the Ajahn Brahm cult, and in his later translations translated 'dhamme' as 'mental phenomena'. Similar to Sujato's "thoughts" & Thanissaro's "ideas",  this later translation is completely wrong.
The Buddha clearly distinguished 'sankhara' ('conditional things') from 'dhamma' ('things'), as shown in AN 3.136. If 'dhamme' in MN 148 only means thoughts, ideas or mental phenomena, then what is the perception of Truth, such as the perception of conditionality, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self, emptiness, liberation & Nibbana? Are these insight knowledges thoughts, ideas & mental phenomena? For example, is the impermanence of the breathing a thought? Is a leaf falling off a tree a thought? Is the Earth rotating around the sun a thought?
To conclude, reiterating AN 3.136, the following verse from the Dhammapada is so crucial to understand. Here, 'dhamma' is distinguished from 'sankhara' because 'dhamma' includes Truth, the fixed Laws of Nature, Nibbana, etc.

"All conditioned things (sankhara) are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.

"All conditioned things (sankhara) are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.

"All things (dhamma) are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Dhammapada

Thus when one sees with wisdom that all things (dhamma) are not-self, this seeing is performed by the mind sense base and the not-self seen is a mind object.

"Dhamma" in this context is defined in the New Concise Pali English Dictionary as:

mental constructs, concepts, ideas, what is to be cognized by the
mind, that which is the object of mental activity

The broadest sense of "dhamma" in the context of the quoted passage is "what is to be cognized by the mind". This is the same as "mind object".
Nibbana is not a thought or idea or concept. But it can be cognized by the mind, which is free from suffering.
Of course, Nibbana as a philosophical concept, is a concept or idea of the mind, but it's different from the actual Nibbana. This too can be cognized by the mind.
The five hindrances (e.g. sloth and torpor) are not thoughts or ideas. They are complex states of mind. But they can be cognized by the mind.
Of course, the five hindrances as a philosophical concept, is a concept or idea of the mind, but it's different from the actual five hindrances. This too can be cognized by the mind.


text:
what is a luminous realm?
Where is there more information about the luminous realm?  the standard pali is lacking. what is the relationship with jhana?
from  MN 115:

“...There are these three elements: the elements of
the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, and the formless realm.
When a mendicant knows and sees these three elements, they’re
qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.”

It is the realm of the first four (rupa) jhanas. See the seven planes; it is the realm of the rupa jhanas (the first four); see this discussion for some sources in DN33. I'm not a Pali expert so not sure why rūpadhātu is translated as "realm of luminous form" here, maybe someone in another answer or comment could elaborate.

Yes, but I’m not sure I’d exclude he fourth jhana here if for no other reason that it’s still rupa whereas what follows is arupa.  Jhana is secluded from sensual pleasure, so by definition anything 1st jhana and up would be luminous.

@000 Oh whoops, of course. That's what I get for quickly posting an answer without thinking through my Abhidhamma fully :) I'll edit my answer.

I marked this answer down. It sounds wrong. The Buddha at times dwells in the rupa jhanas & arupa spheres yet i think i cannot be said the Buddha is one of the gods of streaming radiance or one of the gods in Brahma's retinue. In short, the Buddha does not dwell in any "realm" ("loka"). Please take care with the convolutions of Sujato. The translation "these seven planes of consciousness." also sounds wrong but I must think about why.

Udakarahaka sutta commentary says: "This would correspond to the luminous level of concentration described in the standard simile for the fourth jhana: "He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend..."

as i suspected, the translation "planes of consciousness" is wrong & misleading. The meaning of "viññāṇaṭṭhiti" is clearly found in SN 22.54 https://suttacentral.net/sn22.54/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin