text:
What are the correct "transformation targets" for greed (lobha), hate (dosa) and delusion (moha)?
By "transformation target" I mean ...
When you hold this compulsion in spacious non judgmental awareness, investigate it and tease it apart into (1) that which is unskillful and (2) that which is skillful, what is the "name" that you give to (2) that which is skillful?
Re: transforming unskillful aims (unwise intention) into skillful aims (wise intention),
a prominent Western Buddhism site has suggested the following:

Three Poisons/Defilements (Kilesas – lit. torments of the mind)

Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith
Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom
Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity

This feels mostly correct to me except for “greed (lobha) -> faith”.
This feels like a half measure in restraining greed.
It feels like continuing to cling to greed.
Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?
Re: alternative targets ...
My strong intuition is that nibbana, the subjugation of Mara, is neurologically the subjugation (and repurposing) of the “task negative network” by the “task positive network”
i.e. The utilization of “feeling” to serve “thinking” so that the sensory-motor brain will be more inclined to “see things as they actually are” and make more accurate predictions.
i.e. The dharma is a guide to transforming the sensory-motor brain to use the feedback of bad predictions (dukkha) to transform unskillful views which sustain the bad predictions (dukkha) into skillful views leading to skillful predictions. (the end of dukkha)
To that end, it is my strong intuition that these are the correct targets:
greed (lobha)   -> searching (for similarities) (aka "diffuse mode")
hate (dosa)     -> discerning (for differences) (aka "focused mode")
delusion (moha) -> equanimity (the earned reward of a superior sensory-motor predictive model)

Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?
Why do I think these are the correct targets?
"All models are wrong. Some models are useful." ~George Box
This mental model is "useful":
sense-desire = The belief that happiness depends upon satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience.
greed = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards.
hate = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to push away.
craving = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards and/or push away, that which I do not yet possess
clinging = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards and/or push away, that which I possess and fear losing
"Clinging to sense-desires" is "clinging to views."
Specifically the view that "happiness depends upon satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience."
Clinging to one particular way to meet our needs impairs the ability of the sensory-motor brain to process feedback that would help it to see other means by which those same needs might be met.
To say that this is "unskillful" is a polite understatement.
It represents a malfunction of the sensory-motor brain.
It represents a failure of the "task positive network" to restrain and to use the "task negative network's" "diffuse mode (searching)" and "focused mode (discerning)" as tools to extract wisdom from the feedback leading to a superior sensor-motor predictive model yielding better predictions, better decisions, better moves in the world.
Instead of clinging to a particular sense-desire, it can be skillful to cling to the desire to "see things as they actually are".
In so doing,
1: the compulsion to "pull towards" is repurposed
away from "greed"
and towards "searching for a way to understand the experience."  (aka "diffuse mode")
2: the compulsion to "push away" is repurposed
away from "hate"
and towards discernment. (aka "focused mode")
For example discerning between that which is unskillful and that which is skillful.
That which we call "thinking" seems to consist largely of alternating between "diffuse mode" and "focused mode".
For example, this new thing that I am trying to to understand is
1: "similar to" this other thing that I already understand ("diffuse mode") in these ways ...
but
2: "different than" this other thing that I already understand ("focused mode") in these ways ...
This "thinking" is the "task positive network" of the sensory-motor brain.
It repurposes the more primal emotions of greed and hate and uses them to solve problems.

Not sure what a "transformation target" is -- maybe "an antidote" or "an opposite" but perhaps you mean something else. Also would you reference the page of the "Western Buddhism site" which you are paraphrasing: because perhaps it explains why and what it's saying, and whether it's quoting something.

I think that site maybe made unfounded claims and confused you. Did they give textual references?

@ChrisW: Fair. I mean no disrespect to this site which I highly appreciate: https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/
By "transformation target" I mean the skillful compulsion that the unskillful compulsion should be transformed into. i.e. When you discern that which is skillful from that which is unskillful in the compulsion, what is the "name" of the part that is skillful?

P.S. My experience is that all compulsions which we have "mixed feelings" about contain both (1) a skillful part and (2) an unskillful part. Thus the internal conflict. Obeying the compulsion doesn't resolve the conflict. Suppressing the compulsion doesn't resolve the conflict. The "middle way" of investigating, and teasing it apart into its skillful and unskillful parts, hanging on to that which is skillful and discarding that which is unskillful does resolve the conflict. This describes every "insight" that I have ever had in "insight" meditation. ;)

Thanks, I do believe I understand what you're asking now. I did find it difficult to read -- it  takes careful re-reading because jargon like "task-negative" and "diffuse mode" is unfamiliar -- so perhaps there won't be many answers. Now I'm not saying I won't answer but I can't answer right away, I'll try to post something within days.

From "The Abhidhamma in Practice" by N.K.G. Mendis:

There are six roots. Three are kammically unwholesome (akusala); the
other three may be either kammically wholesome (kusala) or
indeterminate (abyaa-kata), depending on the type of consciousness
they arise in. The unwholesome roots are greed (lobha), hatred (dosa),
and delusion (moha). The three roots which are wholesome in some
cittas and indeterminate in others are greedlessness (alobha),
hatelessness (adosa), and undeludedness (amoha). Though these last
three roots are expressed negatively they have positive
manifestations. Greedlessness manifests as generosity and
renunciation, hatelessness as loving-kindness, and undeludedness as
wisdom or understanding.

So according to the Theravada Abhidhamma:

The opposite of greed (lobha) is greedlessness (alobha), which manifests as generosity and renunciation.
The opposite of hatred/ aversion (dosa) is hatelessness (adosa), which manifests as loving kindness.
The opposite of delusion (moha) is undeludedness (amoha), which manifests as wisdom or understanding.

Right resolve(s) are the tools opposing the root causes of suffering, good householder, and conditioned by right view. And what is right resolve/striving:

...Being resolved on renunciation (virāganissitaṃ), against greed: resolved on no-desiring/on turning away.
...on freedom from ill will (nirodhanissitaṃ), against aversion: resolved on non-destruction.
...on harmlessness (vossaggapariṇāmiṃ), against delusion: resolved on giving up/letting go ([wrong] stand/position).

This is feels 100% correct insofar as it consciously aims the intention towards the extinguishment of the 3 fires. I guess what I'm looking for is: Precisely how are each of the 3 fires split into their skillful and unskillful components? i.e. Initially, each are perceived to be wholly unskillful, but in the course of extinguishing them, we learn that attaining and sustaining release requires repurposing that which is skillful and discarding that which is unskillful.

That site says this:

Three Poisons/Defilements (Kilesas – lit. torments of the mind)

Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith
Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom
Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity

I have no idea where they got this idea and i don't think there is any similar expression anywhere in the theravadin texts.

I don’t remember the sutta but following way can help you neutralise the lobha,dosa and moha ....
Lobha can be neutralised by practising Santosh ( roughly translates into satisfaction with what you have).
Dosa can be neutralised by practising compassion (there are various other ways but compassion works always).
Moha can be neutralised by getting rid of ignorance or practising 8 fold path.
For dosa I can give you the link : https://suttacentral.net/an5.161/en/thanissaro

Thank you. I appreciate the contribution. I must respectfully differ. I think the correct transformation target is the one that does not give rise to mixed feelings. “Does this increase samadhi?” is a good test question.
Unrestrained compassion for predators seeking to harm you does not feel like the most skillful “transformation target” for you or those who care for you. From the predator’s perspective, it might be. ;)

@AlexRyan That’s the challenge... having compassion even for the predators...

Upon reflection, I suspect this might be a gender-specific issue. It's possible that a female can have compassion for a predator and experience no internal conflict so long as that predator provides for or at least does not threaten her offspring. After all, we do have twice as many female ancestors as male. I cannot imagine a healthy male not having mixed feelings about having compassion for a predator. One can feel compassion for the hunger pangs of the shark, and yet not be compelled to feed their baby to it. The predator is an "asset" to females but a "threat" to males.

@AlexRyan no gender specific issue only ending the suffering specific issue...

@AlexRyan Buddha did whatever he did out of compassion

The entirety of the Buddha’s teaching involves training the mind to refrain from the hard wired primal compulsions of the survival machine for genes. aka Mara.The masculine response to predation is the compulsion to violence. The femine response is the compulsion to submission. Each of these is the evolved strategy that leads to the maximum probability of gene survival for each gender.

Submission is “self interest” masquerading as “genuine care and concern”. You can call this “compassion” if you want, but this is delusion (moha) leading to ignorance (avijja). The choice to violate the precept of speaking truthfully to ourselves is the root cause of the entire cycle of suffering. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/44255/2493

@AlexRyan what are you saying ? Male female compulsions? Have you seen females who eat men alive ? You are in spiritual territory. Genes have nothing to do here. Compassion is not submission. Out of compassion I can reprimand you. Yes it is true compassion too is impermanent but it doesn’t need to be replaced by cruelty... you can maintain equanimity. Your thought process is naive and flawed.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Please consider exploring tools other than "fake compassion". BTW, "masculine" and "feminine" do not necessarily correspond to males and females. There are plenty of vulnerable narcissists who are men who lure their victims into their killing field with "fake compassion" as well. Hint: If your "compassion" helps YOU to reduce YOUR stress, it is NOT compassion. It is self interest. If you don't have mixed feelings about that, you are a narcissist.

@AlexRyan Giving water to plants is compassion or necessity? Dont have mixed feelings but you are an idiot.

@AlexRyan I am much more capable than you... Your fake field fails to carry the potential to bear a Buddha ... a void which lacks the property of growth. I can create diseases like Coronavirus ... you are like a dirt before me.

Thank you for proving my point. Your compassion is fake. It is a tool used to manipulate prey. "Greed" masquerading as compassion is an effective camouflage for narcisstic predators. But nibbana enables us to see things as they actually are. The Buddha's gift to us is to enable the predators to be exposed. ;)

Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?
I'm not aware of that list's being explicit in a sutta reference -- not that I know all the suttas but other answers seem to think so too.
But still, if I assume that they're true and that you want my explanation of them, here's how I make sense of them given what I remember.

Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity
I think there are three poisons:

Greed (associated with "pleasant")
Aversion or hatred (associated with "unpleasant")
Ignorance or confusion (associated with "neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant")

And I think it's said that the third of these is the "root" problem -- because people are confused about what's "neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant" therefore they chase after the pleasant and so on and that's samsara.
Whereas I think a monk learns to esteem what's neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant.
See also What is the difference between householder and renunciation equanimity?

Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith
This seems like the least easy to understand, maybe the least orthodox of the three statements if it is unorthodox.
Maybe "faith" is what motivates renunciation and generosity (instead of greed).
It's strange though because I thought that "faith" was a help only initially, i.e. before then seeing things truly for yourself -- because that (experience) comes with practice, and "with faith" may be how practice begins.
But then again, see the topic Reference request for "the Buddha takes the Dhamma as his superior" -- maybe that "dwelling in dependence" (on the three jewels) and "respecting the Dhamma" is what might be described as a "faith".

Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom
That reminds me of the answers to this question -- Experiencing physical pain -- including,

According to my teacher, the enlightened attitude is to see pain as information. (For comparison, the non-enlightened attitude is to block/avoid/suppress pain by all means.) Because pain is information, we should evaluate it, see what message it carries and what it means for us, and then act.


text:
Dhammapada questions on craving
When I picked up a version of the Dhammapada (Parallax Press) and read through I came across an interesting verse in this specific book it was Chapter 24: Craving. Forgive me for not knowing the verses, I'm new to the text.
The verse says:

A man will be swept along
By the thirty-six streams of sensual pleasure,
Borne on the strong currents
Of his craving toward tempting objects.

What are the 'thirty-six' streams of sensual pleasure? Is it some arbitrary enumeration, or is there some further writings detailing the 'thirty-six' streams of sensual pleasure?

You may wonder how "craving verbalizations" in the answer below became "streams of sensual pleasure" in the Dhammapada ... IMO it's worth having more than one translation of the Dhp. at hand : one may be more poetic while another may be more detailed and formal. I keep coming back to this one (Ananda Maitreya - IMO it's a beautiful book) but it's just a window on the text, another may shed a different light on the same verse. Thomas Byrom is pretty good too.

@ruben2020 Thank you for the edit.

@Brian Drummond Thank you, I will have to check that out.

"Monks, I will teach you craving: the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations. Listen well, and I will speak."
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "And which craving is the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations? These 18 craving-verbalizations[1] dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ... 'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external? There being 'I am because of this (or: by means of this),' there comes to be 'I am here because of this,' there comes to be 'I am like this because of this' ... 'I am otherwise because of this' ... 'I am bad because of this' ... 'I am good because of this' ... 'I might be because of this' ... 'I might be here because of this' ... 'I might be like this because of this' ... 'I might be otherwise because of this' ... 'May I be because of this' ... 'May I be here because of this' ... 'May I be like this because of this' ... 'May I be otherwise because of this' ... 'I will be because of this' ... 'I will be here because of this' ... 'I will be like this because of this' ... 'I will be otherwise because of this.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.
"Thus there are 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external. These are called the 36 craving-verbalizations. Thus, with 36 craving-verbalizations of this sort in the past, 36 in the future, and 36 in the present, there are 108 craving-verbalizations.
"This, monks is craving the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.199.than.html

Good answer,+1.

@Buddhism Thank you!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does a virtuous Buddhist indicate when making a turn and no-one (else) is watching?
It’s a question about the balance hetween adhering to law but also not becoming ridiculous about it.
I hope it’s not a ridiculous question.
———-
I am adding a justification for the validity of this question:
violating a law in principle is suffering related, if not for getting caught by a hiding police officer, then because of moral shame anyway. so the question is about whether getting too pedantic about the law is silly (silliness leading to suffering, I presume.)
For example, a traffic light in the middle of a desert — who would obey it but a fool?

Does signaling with no traffic help to reduce suffering? Is signaling or not signaling when making a turn with no traffic related at all to the Four Noble Truths??

I once made a turn without signaling when no one else was around, and got pulled over by a traffic cop who was hiding around the corner. That may have increased my suffering a little, but the officer seemed quite pleased with himself, so....

Does a virtuous Buddhist indicate when making a turn and no-one (else) is watching?
When I learned to drive, I was taught that signaling is legally required [only] if other vehicles might be affected -- Is Signalling Always Required on Roads in Ontario?
In practice I find it easier and less distracting to always signal -- a flick of the finger in a car -- instead of checking to be completely certain that no-one anywhere could possibly be affected at all.
(Indicating when cycling is slightly different, maybe I won't go into that here).
For example, a traffic light in the middle of a desert — who would obey it but a fool?
Me again.
I commuted by bike, and part of that (to avoid busier roads) was through residential neighbourhoods.
Residential neighbourhoods tend to have "four-way Stop signs" instead of traffic lights -- where everyone is meant to stop, then proceed if safe -- partly to make them unattractive to cars (i.e. lots of Stop signs).
I was also taught, as a young driver, that stopping at a Stop sign is required to be a "complete stop" and not a "rolling stop" (you can do a rolling stop on a Yield sign, not a Stop sign).
So anyway, I'm cycling along, and cyclists coming in the other direction warn me there are policemen stopping cyclists for rolling through the stop signs at an intersection. And I think, "What's this to me? Because I stop." but then I decided it was a chance to get a question answered, and so I went there, and I saw that the policemen were "bicycle cops" -- professional cyclists -- people who could answer from experience and not just from theory.
So I pulled up next to one who had a free moment and asked, "How much 'stop' do you want to see, from a cyclist, at a stop sign ... a rolling stop or a complete stop?"
Because when you're on a bike, a "complete" stop is slightly inconvenient -- you have to stop, put your foot down (for balance), start up gain.
And he looked at me, took a breath, and answered.

Intersections are the most dangerous place on a road. Most accidents happen at intersections. I see people blowing through intersection without even looking. What I want to see is people look, before they enter the intersection. So look! Both ways! Twice! And if you see a policeman, then come to a complete stop."

Which I thought was hilarious and very true.
Anyway -- if I saw a traffic light in the desert then I imagine I'd stop. Why is it there? What's the danger? How long will it stay red? Am I sure, quite sure, it's safe to cross?
And then I might cross -- especially if it doesn't turn green in a reasonable time -- which, might even be legal because, again, when I learned to drive, I learned that we're supposed to treat a broken traffic light in the same way as a four-way stop sign.

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


text:
Laws of the land, and Buddhist virtues and precepts
Some laws coincide with Buddhist precepts for e.g. penalizing murder and theft.
But there are other laws like traffic rules or Covid-19 rules which have no direct equivalent in Buddhism.
However, we tend to frown upon people who disobey traffic rules and sometimes see them as immoral if they keep deliberately breaking traffic rules repeatedly.
Are breaking traffic rules deliberately and repeatedly a violation of Buddhist precepts and virtues? Is it a violation of Right Action?
If it is not a violation of Buddhist precepts, virtues and Right Action, then is it a sign of a unwholesome or unskillful mindset from a Buddhist perspective? And why?

Breaking traffic rules may be a safety issue, thus not "harmless", and so an answer may be (too) obvious -- so is that really the kind of law-disobedience you want to ask about?

@ChrisW Yes, you're right. It's hard to find a good example.

we tend to frown upon people who disobey traffic rules
I've been taught we might "frown on" bad behaviours but needn't frown on people.
So for example I'm inclined to think, "that's bad driving", and not, "you're a bad person for driving that way".
I'd tend to frown on and stay clear of dangerous driving.
There's a saying, "Don't attribute to malice what you might attribute to incompetence"!
Double standards though: I do tend to attribute good (safe) driving to good will -- I've  admired the way in which most drivers cooperate, coordinate with each other, by all obeying the same traffic laws.
Are breaking traffic rules deliberately
I believe intention matters, and than there is some variation due to local circumstance.
For example in France the speed limit is 130 km/hour on the highway, you may in practice be fined for driving at 134, most people don't exceed the speed limit, and neither do I.
Conversely in Ontario the official limit is (or was until recently) 100 km/hr, and everyone drives as if the real speed limit were 110 -- and in that situation, I figure that insisting on sticking to the letter of the law and driving at 95 would be less safe than driving at 110, like everyone else does, except in winter.
Is it a violation of Right Action?
Following the letter of the law, SN 45.8

And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity. This is called right action.

These are three of the four Pārājika offences. So I think "Right Action" in that context is, "action which won't get you expelled from the community of monks".
And, strictly, "taking life" is a pārājika only if you're intending to kill. So, speeding, or failing to signal, resulting in an accident, presumably "doesn't count" unless you're doing it in order to kill (and not e.g. just out of carelessness).
But!! Some road accident can cause a lot grief.
is it a sign of a unwholesome or unskillful mindset from a Buddhist perspective
Again, I don't like to condemn others. I don't want to say, "if you do that then your mindset is unwholesome or unskillful". But I can tell you that when I drive or even ride a bike I'm conscious that it's potentially dangerous to other people on the road and that I can and must avoid those dangers by driving conscientiously -- and I think that's a virtue from a Buddhist perspective, mettā, ahimsa -- and may fit the definition of "skillful", in that its purpose includes "freedom from remorse".

Are breaking traffic rules deliberately and repeatedly a violation of Buddhist precepts and virtues? Is it a violation of Right Action?

If one is reckless then it is bad for oneself and for others, if it is antisocial behavior which endangers or rightly annoys other people then it's bad behavior and not conducive to sitting for 7 days & 7 nights in phalasamadhi as one begets only trouble.
Other people also get in trouble if they get annoyed by that bad behavior or have otherwise delusional thinking in that circumstance.

Why would anyone want to violate traffic lights deliberately? Where is the faith ? Such questions on behalf of anyone clearly shows that there is lack of faith .... I mean how can one even think of disturbing peace... those without faith are ignorant but Buddhist are wise , they don’t indulge in such nonsense .,.

In general, when you answer, please don't criticize someone for even asking the question.

@ChrisW I will edit my answer


text:
Intentional or unintentional sexual thoughts
I've been restless for these past few days. Once I have an unappropiate thought about a holy figure, and I think it was unintentional (not sure though). But then I kept thinking about it over and over again (I tried to analyse whether it is intentional or not). My questions are:

Is sexual thought about holy figures unforgivable sin?
Am I creating bad karma by thinking about it over and over again?
What advice do you have for me? I keep on feeling really guilty and keep on thinking about it.

Random thoughts (like random sexual thoughts) don't collect much bad karma. Intentional and deliberate thoughts generate karma. Habitual intentional thoughts accumulate karma.
Now, you are feeling remorse because you had those thoughts.
What you should do is acknowledge that those are random thoughts. Acknowledge that you don't have evil intentions.
And now you should disassociate from those thoughts using mindfulness. Just watch those thoughts as they appear but understand that they are not related to you or anything. Just watch and acknowledge it, then let it go.
Watch this video talk on YouTube on the scientific research done in this area.
From a canonical perspective, the Lonaphala Sutta explains that a trifling evil act has significant consequences for an undeveloped person but hardly any effect for a developed person.
Your remorse is part of that unintended significant consequence. But if you learn to let go, then you would have developed your mind to detach from such trifling negative thoughts.

Is sexual thought about holy figures unforgivable sin?
No. But it takes you on a wrong path. A path which you must avoid for your own sake.
Am I creating bad karma by thinking about it over and over again?
Don’t run away. Thoughts can be good , bad and neutral which actually means  associated feelings are good bad and neutral ...now when you come across bad feelings ... acknowledge that you are having bad feeling and when you have good feeling acknowledge you are having good feeling (similarly for neutral feelings) Remember no feeling lasts forever therefore wait for it pass away keeping in mind it’s nature. You will not accumulate bad karma as you give up what is not yours. Those feelings are not yours or you or yourself.

So sexual thoughts about holy figures isn't unforgivable sin?? I thought it was a great bad karma or something..

@iyilau what is sin ? Whose sin is it ? Who decides what is sin ? It is unwholesome and that’s what I said ... it is not good for you but running away from feelings is not the solution .... you should realise all good , bad and neutral feelings will pass away... they are not yours ... what is not not yours should you care about it ?

You're right, but sometimes I can't help but feel guilty about it.. and sometimes I fear I'll end up in hell or something..

@iyilau If you feel guilty then as said repeat to yourself that the feeling is not mine , me or myself .... realise it ... same for the feeling of fear ... why would worry about something which has nothing to do with you ...

So if everything is not ours.. let's say someone committed a murder and he felt guilty, that feelings are not theirs too? but wouldn't murder cause bad karma?

@iyilau Ideally you should leave what is not yours. Even if you have committed murder and you really and honestly leave what is not yours , you will not accrue bad karma...

I was diagnosed at the age of 21 with OCD, after spending most of my teenage and young adult years suffering immense pain and shame from unwanted and intrusive thoughts.
The most persistent manifestation of this experience was intrusive and repetitive thoughts about my sexuality.  In short, I would constantly think I was gay.  In reality, if I was gay, it would’ve been fine, and I would’ve gone about my business; but it wasn’t that at all - it was an all consuming doubt that would never let me be.
All day long my mind would say, “remember when you noticed that guy was handsome?” or “if you weren’t gay, why would you always think about it? Normal straight people don’t think about this so much.”
It was insatiable.  I would say to myself, “Okay.  Fine I’ll be gay” just to stop the suffering.  But nothing would silence the persistent unpleasant questions and ruminations.
Now - am I saying this is your issue?  Not at all.  But I believe the cure I discovered for myself will also serve you.
What I discovered was that the more I engaged with this voice, the more power it had, and the more damaging it would become.  I was completely sexually attracted to women and had off and on girlfriends most of my teen years and later.  But none of that assuaged my doubt.  Nothing I told myself could quell the never ending questioning and suffering.
Until one day, I just started to observe the incessant stream of thoughts without trying to suppress or intervene in any way .  I watched the screaming repetitive questions  pass by without trying to fix or change them.  Then I would say, “Thanks for sharing”.
Over time I discovered that the only thing that was keeping this suffering around was my insistence that “it shouldn’t be” and my trying to fix it.  Once I decided to let it be, it let me be.
This a lot of what is at the heart of meditation in Buddhist practice.  Particularly in Vipassana or “insight” meditation.  You observe - bring awareness to - the experience or sensation exactly as it is without trying to alter the sensation - without trying to fix your thoughts - and you let the sensation or experience be exactly as it is and exactly as it isn’t.
We find that we are the source of our own suffering in a very tangible way.  The more we try and fix ourselves the more broken we become.
Anyway - I know that your experience is different than mine - but try bringing “no change” to your sensations.  Try and be with that experience exactly as it is without following the feelings of shame or lust that arise.  Notice it and experience it fully without resisting or submitting to the experience, but rather, simply seeing it.  Sometimes you don’t even notice when you have “dropped some baggage”, but you definitely walk lighter without it.

Is sexual thought about holy figures unforgivable sin?

They are not on any list of unforgivable bad things. There are 5 major obstacles which block path attainments and lead to hell:
Abhithanani; i. matricide, ii. patricide, iii. the murder of arahants (the Consummate Ones), iv. the shedding of the Buddha's blood, v. causing schism in the Sangha, and vi. pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi).

Am I creating bad karma by thinking about it over and over again?

The theme of the attractive is not wholesome and the object of desire is not so important. The more attention you give it the more it becomes an inclination of the mind and a habit. It is conditioned and therefore it comes up uninvited, it is like a memorized text or a song you've heard coming to mind.

What advice do you have for me? I keep on feeling really guilty and keep on thinking about it.

You are not the only one like this and lust always gets out of control as it finds an opening. Your situation could be a lot worse.
You can study the dhamma more and train according to this text https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html for removal of distracting thoughts.
You could try to develop the perception of unattractiveness to extinguish lust when you have time.

I think it somehow already becomes a habit.. because everytime I see somehing sexual I would immediately think of that. Am I creating bad karma everytime I think about that? What should I do?

Thinking about sex is bad kamma and it creates bad kamma but it is not as powerful as good kamma of turning the mind away from that. Some things cancel other things out.

You can learn about "guarding of the senses", probably good for you

Don't worry about it too much because worry is not helpful and you are like other people. You are responsible for future development. Nobody can stop this fire for you, only discipline and work. Guilt is not appropriate if it is misdirected, guilt, fear & shame are nornal but one need to learn to "cover things up with leaves" and resolve things quickly to move along undisturbed.

A person might have shame about what is not shameful and not have shame about what is. If people constantly worry and feel guilt about something then they can never move on to make their mind great but if they never have fear & shame then they wouldn't have fear of bad consequences and not be urged to do good to avoid the bad. You have to study Buddhist texts a lot and develop the theme of not self, seems like you are very new.


text:
Is Mahayana Buddhism a form of idealism?
Do Mahayana Buddhists believe that the whole world and all objects are created by the mind? For example, my friend and I see a train. Do I and my friend see the same train?
Tell me if it is correct to say that Mahayana Buddhists believe that the people they see in front of them have consciousness and sensations (individual mindstreams) and exist independently of the imagination of Buddhists, but all of us and our whole world are dependent on all people and their minds, that is, we co-create our world together?
And what about the Yogacara school, which is considered idealism?

Is this yet another solipsism question?

Try reading this answer in response to a similar question.

Thank you!That is, when Mahayana Buddhists see people in front of them, they believe that they have consciousness and sensation (individual streams of the mind) and that they see the same object, just each person perceives it differently?

Yes, I can go with that wording. :-)

I hadn't seen the word "intersubjectivity" before. I'd heard of Joint attention or shared attention though, from talking about "early childhood education". I imagine that's how and when people begin to learn what "a train" is -- I can't easily fathom what that's got to do with Mahayana though.

I just thought that Mahayana is idealism and so I wanted to know how buddhist perceives the people he sees?

Idealism is a diverse group of metaphysical views which all assert that "reality" is in some way indistinguishable or inseparable from human perception and/or understanding. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism). Please note the key term of idealism's common definition is "indistinguishable or inseparable", it doesn't mean "all objects are created by the mind". Subjective idealism even don't accept there exists objects, while objective idealism does accept the existence of objective reality but emphasizes (nonhuman) mind's precedence over those objects.

Mahayana Buddhists do NOT believe that the whole world and all objects are literally created by the mind.
Yogacara and especially Mahayana is not a form of subjective idealism, that's a popular urban myth/misunderstanding.
"the people they see in front of them have consciousness and sensations (individual mindstreams)" - yes of course.
"but all of us and our whole world are dependent on all people and their minds, that is, we co-create our world together" - maybe but that's beside the point.
The way I would put the mainstream Mahayana view is: each person's subjective reality is a projection of their mind which in turn is a result of their background and choices. Different backgrounds&choices give rise to different minds which project different subjective realities. Subjective realities overlap to the extent the backgrounds/choices/minds are alike.
Your friend and you see similar trains to the extent your minds are alike. To the extent your backgrounds are different you will pay attention to different aspects of the train, your interpretations will differ etc. - to that extent your respective trains will be unique.

That is, when Mahayana Buddhists see people in front of them, they believe that they have consciousness and sensation (individual streams of the mind) and that they see the same object, just each person perceives it differently?

"consciousness and sensation" - yes; "the same object" - no!
They don't think the notion of "object" has validity anywhere outside subjective experience. The stuff they look at + each of their respective backgrounds is together called "the [ontological] basis of imputation" but its not considered delineated into distinct objects ontologically. The delineation of "the ground" (aka "basis") into "subject" and "objects" is a feature of the subjective experience.

does it mean when a Mahayana Buddhist looks at a person who stands in front of him, he believes that this person has an individual mindstream(consciousness and sensations), but when he looks at a train with his friend, he believes that everyone perceives the train differently?

In your example with the train we have two distinct "bases of imputation" that share most (but not all!) of the present material (the scene in front of them) but don't share most of the past material (personal backgrounds that formed their present bodies and minds).

~Yes to your last question. He believes everyone perceives something different. You may be perceiving a train and your friend may be perceiving a nostalgic memory of saying goodbye to his girlfriend he last saw on a similar train.

Thank you. I understand when you say that Mahayana Buddhists perceive the train according to their experience, but I cannot understand how they perceive the people they see in front of them

They perceive them according to their conditioning and experience too. And they (hopefully) understand that those people, too, perceive everything according to their conditioning and experience.

May I ask again? Mahayana Buddhists believe that the people they see in front of them have consciousness and sensation (individual mindstreams), and also that they do not imagine these people?

I think a good student of Mahayana Buddhism understands that a lot of what they see is their own projection, for example if the person they look at seems evil or sexy or freaky, a good student of Mahayana Buddhism should  be aware of the risk of confusing "things as they truly are" with their projections. But no I don't think many Mahayana Buddhists think they imagine other people in their entirety or that those people don't have consciousness, unless they see those people in a dream. There may be some outliers out there but that's definitely not the mainstream view.

Thank you! You are a very good teacher of Buddhism!

Can anyone think about train differently ? It is a means to commute. Someone can take liberty for example a kid and think of it as a means of entertainment. Some people can think of it as a means to earn money. Some people can think of it as a means to fill their stomach. Some people can think of it as a means to meet their lover or relatives... Train is same but people can think about it differently. There are no surprises here.
Now coming to the physicality. Same physical observations guide the design of the train.Train assumes people of some fixed height and weight will travel. Train assumes that no will sit on floor or in the bathrooms.Two person can have different views on its physical comfort and utility. But if you are saying that any person can think of it as aeroplane that will be absurdly wrong and no one can physically stretch a train in the minds to make it more spacious ... but yes it can happen that trains can meet accidents if mind desires... that is quite obvious how.
Do we co-create the world ? Sometimes but not always. Just as we can not identify I or self , we can not identify we or us. Sabbe sanskar annicca ... sometimes we co-destruct the world...

Thank you!That is, when Mahayana Buddhists see people in front of them, they believe that they have consciousness and sensation (individual streams of the mind) and that they see the same object, just each person perceives it differently?

@Randy I only know teachings of Buddha ... I have hardly studied Mahayana... however I can tell you that people can have different perceptions or same perception about a thing... sabbe sanskar annicca... perceptions change from the individual point of view and collective point of view.


text:
I am a buddhist, and i have a harm OCD
i need guidance for a problem that i have for 5 years. I have a harm ocd, i keep having this extremely bad imaginations about killing family/holy beings and destroying holy stuff. The thing is, i REALLY REALLY do not want to do any of this, i love my family, i feel blessed knowing about dharma and stuff. But somehow, this dark bad repetitive imagination keep playing on my head. There is even this 'inner voice' who keep voicing things like "I want to kill X" even if I REALLY dont want to. Is this counted as bad karma? And what should i do? Just let it pass or maybe i should keep hurting myself so it will stop? Sorry if this sounds weird. May all of you have a great day ahead. Thank you

Please seek professional help. Answers on Buddhism SE is not a substitute for professional help.

First, it seems like you’re suffering, and I’m sorry to read that. I sincerely hope you find release from your troubles.
Having said that, I will attempt to put your worries to rest by pointing out that the Buddha repeatedly states that Kamma arises from performing action with intention. There are a variety of canonical sources exploring the relationship between Kamma and intention, and I would encourage you to search for those. If we look at those sources, we might conclude that since you do not intend to perform those harmful actions, those thoughts do not generate bad Kamma.
On a more personal note, I would encourage you to seek psychiatric help. I myself suffer from generalized anxiety disorder, and there is hope. If you find a psychiatrist, and you supplement your practice with medical help, your progress on the path might become easier.
All the best.

You need to do something which shows respect for the people you think you are killing. For example you can bow before them, you can touch their feet , you can ask for forgiveness. At the same time do not run away from such thoughts which generate bad feelings ... ultimately it is not your feeling... that which is not yours would like to give importance to it ?  Do you give importance to strangers ? No . Similarly you should not give importance to such feelings. As they arise so shall they will pass. If you feel guilty for killing someone (in imagination) then you can use volition to neutralise it by paying deep respect or showing deep love...

I think that you need to find people who can help you manage this condition.
With a case like this one might have to try different things to work it out because many things can be causing this. Therefore it is difficult to give any particular advice.
Sometimes things like this can be caused by evil spirits and sometimes these things can become an obsessive inclination due to a frequent giving of attention.
If it is either of those then one could resolve it with training but if these visions are caused by some physiological imbalance then i think it's tough because nobdy seems to know how to fix it.
That being said many people hear voices and most seem to be able to learn to manage.
You circumstance is particularly troublesome because the themes are so violent.
What i can advice to try is regarding those perceptions as one would a song that got stuck in the mind or as one would recurring imagery after watching a movie. Otherwise maybe  ry as if it was an itch, something unpleasant experienced due to past conditioning.
Also try working on the removal of distracting thoughts
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html
As for evil spirits it wouldn't hurt to try complaining because if it works then good and if it doesn't then you can more so rule it out and it doesn't cost you anything. For this how to you should make a different question.
In general many yakkhas hate Buddhism and will mess with people who annoy them, fortunately they aren't very difficult to deal with.
What i don't recommend you do is some intensive meditation experiments and not cooperating with doctors. If you want to meditate then get off medication for a while and remain supervised throughout the course.
This way you will learn more because even if you struggle & fail you can go back on the medication as you prepare for next try.
Beware of meditation in general because if your ability to focus sharpens your visions can and probably will become much more intense & vivid on that account.
That being said if you meditate do basic anapanasati and calm thoughts. If you can get to jhana it would be a good refuge from voices.
You shouldn't be particularly ashamed of thinking thoughts you don't want to think but you should make an effort to become a master of thought-pathways so that you think the thoughts you want to think and don't think the thoughts that you don't want to think.
You are hurt with these terrors and you hurt yourself more with harm. Think of it as a disease you have to endure and that even taking your life will not remove it, only overcome with patience.
In general it is shameful & humiliating to not be a master of thought but on this account your condition isn't more shameful than that of other people. People should have compassion for you and you should have compassion for yourself. I don't think poorly of you because you have these nightmares, it sounds like what is dear to you is getting attacked and you are being abused by these terrors.
Nobody in their right mind would think you really want to do bad things but people will think you are a liability if you can't control it. I think in general you shouldn't feel like you have to prove that you are a good person to anybody because these thoughts are not you and you are dealing with a tough condition.
Even if you just make a little effort towards Arahantship it is immeasurably meritorious and victory is not necessarily in this life. Even if you don't master it in this life this condition will pass for you eventually and you will finish it under favorable conditions.
Be patient and endure it. Also see if not yakkha:)

I'm going second arturovm's suggestion that you seek clinical help. Persistent destructive thoughts (whether of the self or of others) should not be ignored, if only to preserve one's own mental balance. There's no harm in discussing your own suffering, particularly if it keeps that suffering from spreading to others...
That in mind, you might spend some time in contemplation, trying to discover what it is you think such destruction will accomplish. Often when we have fantasies of violence and destruction, it is more about establishing a sense of meaning and empowerment for ourselves. The urge to destroy a holy site might be in reality an urge to show that the holy site has no real power over us: that we are more than the holy site allows us to be; more than the restrictions that 'holiness' places on us. And there is an element of truth in this. True enlightenment is a state of liberation, one in which the typical 'rules of the road' do not necessarily apply. But we don't need to destroy anything to get there; that is part of our unenlightened delusions. If you examine carefully, you'll realize that holy sites are nothing meaningful; that family is nothing meaningful; that great sages and holy teachers are nothing meaningful. They are there to guide us, that's all, and we can turn your back on them with peace in our hearts whenever it feels right to do so.
If one has a fantasy of destruction — whether or not one intends to act on it — it means one is feeling oppressed and constrained. It's the urge of a seed to break through dirt and concrete to reach the light, so that the seed can grow and bloom. Everyone has a right to grow and bloom, but no one needs to break anything to get there. Switch from contemplation to meditation to sap the urge so that you can see the better, clearer, gentler path forward. A violent thought it just a mental arising: it comes, it lingers, it leaves. Watch it through the whole cycle, over and over, and sooner or later it will evaporate like the morning dew.
If you're in the US, you might try this hotline: (800) 273-8255, or text MHA to 741741.

There are some great answers here so I hope you read all of them and consider. Another thing that may help is to realize that those thoughts you are experiencing are not YOU. They don't define YOU. They are not an inherent part of who you are. They are merely thoughts that arise and cease. What you have is a habit. A very uncomfortable one that is unsatisfactory. Understanding that this habit itself is subject to change and does not inherently define you and is not an inherent part of who you are can be one of the first steps in watching it slowly go away.

Is this counted as bad karma?
I think "karma" in Buddhism is defined as "intentional action" or something like that.

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

It seems to me from your description that the "imagination" and "voice" are just perceptions which arise and that you're aware of -- and that your intention (intentional action or karma) is described as, "i REALLY REALLY do not want to do any of this", i.e. you want to be non-harmful.
I suppose that most people at some time experience moments of imagination, and some people "a voice". And the wise thing is to correctly assess whether it's harmful before you act (or don't act) on it.
And what should i do? Just let it pass or maybe i should keep hurting myself so it will stop?
Ideally you'd hurt neither yourself nor others.
A lot of people have self-harming behaviours, addictions, rituals -- but I believe that "practice to benefit self and others" is the correct answer, canonically.
There's MN 19 for example which describes the kind of thinking which led the Buddha to enlightenment...

The Blessed One said, "Monks, before my self-awakening, when I was still just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keep dividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, and thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will, & thinking imbued with harmlessness another sort.
"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'
"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence.

... and so on.
This may be a process people go through to "renounce" any form of addiction -- which is of course perhaps not easy, but better for self and others -- that's the ideal.
That's also stated explicitly in AN 4.95.

The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.
The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that. The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those. But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Incidentally, the "firebrand" simile in that sutta:

Suppose there was a firebrand for lighting a funeral pyre, burning at both ends, and smeared with dung in the middle. It couldn’t be used as timber either in the village or the wilderness.

I suspect that "burning at both ends" represents the Buddhist "middle way between extremes" -- where "middle way" means "neither extreme". So for example if "hurting others" is one extreme, and "hurting self" is the other extreme, then the Buddhist doctrine might be counselling neither of these, avoid both. Sometimes that's difficult to see, as the mind manufactures "false dilemmas" (also referred to as "false dichotomy") -- like, "Which will it be: one or the other?"
And "smeared with dung in the middle" may represent that it isn't only the two extremes which shouldn't be grasped.
Sorry if this sounds weird.
This sounds familiar to me. I know some people do "hear a voice" sometimes -- and it's good, better, to be able to judge whether what's being voiced is harmful or harmless, and to be motivated to act harmlessly and not act harmfully.

It's good, good householder, to fear such terrible and being reminded that if not reaching the stream, one is still able to make all, even the most worse deeds. Most people think their intentions are for sure and might not have come in situation where confusion and wrong view can lead to such "crazy" acts.
Once listened to the good Dhamma, having left home, with proper attention,such thing is eternally solved, so one wise does good to take on what ever "hardship" possible in regard of the training, in regard of merits, to get as fast as possible ride of such total valid fear.
Much conviction and effort, seeing those imaginations as very friends and reminders, a blessing less have, having gotten certain access to the path out of dangers.


text:
Is there an online copy of English translation of Pramanavarttika of Shri Dharmakirthi?
Is there a an online copy of English translation of Pramanavarttika of Shri Dharmakirthi?
Of the available links only second chapter is available.
If the full version is available, please provide the link for it.

Can down voters please say why you are downvoting. So that if there's something I can fix, I will fix it.

Maybe it is because you aspirated the T in "Dharmakīrti?" Who knows? It's a fine question, so it's back to 0 from -1 now.

Yes, there are quite a few trasnlations available in ENglish, by reputed scholars of the field. The book has a total of five chapters. SOme works cover individual chapters like Tom J.F. Tilleman's translation, which is of the fourth chapter or Nagatomi's PhD disstertation which is a translation work of the first chapter. Another scholar by the name of John D. Dunne has some parts translated, in his book titiled Foundations of Dharmakirti's Philosophy. There is a translation by Mookerjee and Nagasaki. There is an e-text by MOtoi Ono. Then there are some translations that include the commentary. But to be able to access good translations, you would very likely need UNiversity access or individual subscriptions. Books are more easily available.
Edit: You may find the following link useful.
https://east.ikga.oeaw.ac.at/buddh/ind/7/16/

Here is a chapter.
I didn't see any full translations, but you can find bits like this, also like the second chapter you found.
https://www.academia.edu/30822030/Dharmakirtis_Pramanavarttika_An_annotated_translation_of_the_fourth_chapter_Vol_1_k_1_148_

I'm especially looking for the first chapter which is just not foubd anywhere.

The formatting is absolutely terrible on this old document, but I also found this: https://archive.org/stream/AStudyOfDharmakirtisPramanavarttikaMasatoshiNagatomi/A%20study%20of%20Dharmakirti%27s%20Pramanavarttika_%20-%20Masatoshi%20Nagatomi_djvu.txt

even in this the first chapter seems to be missing and onlysecond chaptee is present. I'm trying to find Dharmakirti's refutation of authorlessness and authority of Vedas. I cant find it. Its supposed to be there in the first chapter. I can't find it in the link you have given.

On this page here, https://east.ikga.oeaw.ac.at/buddh/ind/7/16/, you'll see "Mookerjee, Satkari, and Hojun Nagasaki. 1964. The Pramāṇavārttikam of Dharmakīrti: An English Translation of the First Chapter with the Autocommentary and with Elaborate Comments. Nava Nālandā Mahāvihāra Research Publication 4. Patna: Nava Nālandā Mahāvihāra."

If you can track that down, hopefully it would be the whole first chapter.

thanks for the amazing work. I know about this book. But this book is copyright protected and is not available online.

Have you tried looking in the library catalogs of nearby universities?

I'm in a country where the nearest university library which has this book is in a different country.


text:
"No trace" conceptual origins and term
There is a quote by Shunryu Suzuki which says:

When you do something, you should do it with your whole body and mind; you should be concentrated on what you do. You should do it completely, like a good bonfire. You should not be a smoky fire. You should burn yourself completely. If you do not burn yourself completely, a trace of yourself will be left in what you do.

I think I've read this elsewhere described in terms of a snowflake in a fire, and everything turned to ash.
Is there an original source(s) of this concept, and if so, is there a succinct name for it in Chinese or Japanese Zen?

There is a similar question which has this answer

"Wholeheartedness" is the term we use in my Rinzai lineage.  In Japanese, you can probably get away with the term "kanshin" which loosely translates to "the mind with no remainder".  Think of it as a mind that is so engaged, there's nothing left over that could be doing something else.  Like if you're hoeing beans, you are hoeing beans and not thinking about your taxes or whether Gincarlo Stanton will finally play a full season for the Yankees.
This is the place where not even a needle can enter.  It is a practice that is so close that no air can escape.


text:
Did the Buddha break his promise?
In MN 138, the Buddha said this:

The Blessed One said: "Monks, I will teach you a statement & its analysis. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said this: "A monk should investigate in such a way that, his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally positioned, he would from lack of clinging/sustenance be unagitated. When — his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally positioned — from lack of clinging/sustenance he would be unagitated, there is no seed for the conditions of future birth, aging, death, or stress."
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat and went into his dwelling.
Then, not long after the Blessed One had left, this thought occurred to the monks: "This brief statement the Blessed One has made, after which he went into his dwelling without analyzing the detailed meaning

I thought the Buddha always kept his promises. Why didn’t he analyze the statement when he said he would?

I don’t see where he promised to analyse...

Those are two sentences. Perhaps the first is the statement and the second the analysis.

Also in the Pali it's a single compound word:

Mendicants, I shall teach you the analysis of a recitation passage.
uddesavibhaṅgaṁ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi.

uddesa

recitation, instruction; indication; brief indication, brief statement;
summary exposition instructing, specifying; inviting; food for a specific person

vibhaṅga
distribution; division; classification

So maybe there's no promise of a separate analysis -- it's just the word they use, like "explanation" or "dhamma-talk" or something like that, and this one happened to be a very short one.
Also I wonder whether uddesa is necessarily always verbal (apparently they often are, so often that one was expected) -- whether this might be a teaching-by-example instead of a verbal analysis.

From the MN 58 quote below, we see that the Buddha has a sense of proper time for saying things which are factual, true and beneficial.
So, we can only surmise that the Buddha gave a statement without its detailed analysis, to give the monks time to think about his statement, before explaining to them the detailed analysis at a proper time, later. Why is that? It's because he has compassion for the monks.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
of the proper time for saying them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
sympathy for living beings."

That makes sense.

He did analyze it. His exposition was to return to his hut and simply move on without being externally or internally bound. This is very similar to the Zen story about kicking over the water jug.

When Master Guishan was under Baizhang, he had the position of tenzo [cook]. Baizhang wanted to choose a master for Great Gui Mountain in the province of Konan. He called the head monk and the rest of his disciples together to have them present their views and said that the outstanding person should be sent.
Then he took a water jug, put it on the floor, and said, “You may not call this a water jug. What will you call it?”
The head monk said, “It cannot be called a wooden sandal.”
Baizhang then asked Guishan. Guishan immediately kicked over the water jug and left.
Baizhang laughed and said, “First monk, you have been defeated by Guishan.”
So he ordered Guishan to found the new monastery.

The Buddha's analysis was straightforward and direct. Effectively he told us to understand this teaching ourselves through direct insight and ongoing practice, without further ado, and certainly without extra babble.

First, a disclaimer: I cannot give assurance that this answer is found in Theravada Buddhism, as your question is tagged, nor am I answering the question in the title. I am answering the question you pose at the end of your description: “Why didn’t he analyze the statement when he said he would?”
The Buddha said: “I will teach you a statement & its analysis.” He did not say that those were two different things. In fact, the statement is the analysis of itself. It tells us how to investigate. Investigate what? Investigate the Dharma, that which the Buddha was teaching. He gives directions on how to do it, by training our mind so that it is not externally, nor internally fixed, and therefore without attachment to views or understandings (sustenance) that feed our discursive thoughts.  For example, by being attached to the understanding that analyzing a statement is something done in a procedural way, rather than by an intuitive insight about its meaning.
Here is a quote from the Mahayana, found in the Surangama Sutra:

Ananda, if you are now desirous of more perfectly understanding Supreme Enlightenment and the enlightening nature of pure Mind-Essence, you must learn to answer questions spontaneously with no recourse to discriminating thinking. For the Tathagatas in the ten quarters of the universes have been delivered from the ever returning cycle of deaths and rebirths by this same single way, namely, by reliance upon their intuitive minds.”


text:
How can someone integrate the Buddhist philosophy on life's purpose into daily life?
The question 'What is the purpose of life?' has been asked before. What I understood is that if I were to set a purpose to life, once I achieve my goal, life becomes meaning less. There is no single thought great enough to spend an entire lifetime. So, life has no intrinsic meaning.
In everyday life, we try to plan things. Setting goals provide clarity about what exactly to do, what's important and what's not. Reaching goals help building self-confidence and motivates to move forward. It also helps to work efficiently while dealing with big tasks (Makes big tasks into smaller, more manageable units, Helps good decision making that are inline with the final goal).
Both sound reasonable to me but they also seem contradictory. Then how should a lay man approach his life to be productive and at the same time seek liberation from the sufferings of samsara?

The essence of dukkha (suffering) is clash, conflict, discord, disharmony - of some kind, whether inner conflict in one person's mind or outer conflict between persons or groups of people.
The opposite of that is happiness, whose essence is peace and harmony.
A lay person could make meaningful contribution to society and make progress towards liberation from samsara by dedicating his or her life to reducing the causes of suffering and creating causes of happiness.
Specifically, reducing, preventing, reconciling inner and outer conflicts and helping with implementation of behaviors that lead to peace and harmony.
For example, a professional peacemaker/negotiator in armed conflicts is someone who resolves external conflicts. Resolving external conflicts he or she removes causes of suffering. Making peace he or she creates causes of happiness.
You can come up with more ideas like this. A psychologist reduces suffering that happens due to inner conflicts. A teacher reduces suffering that happens due to ignorance and confusion.
Various professions work in different areas and have different level of influence: some work at individual level and some work with large groups of people.
The important thing to realize is what I started my answer with. As long as your job is reducing causes of suffering such as conflicts, clashes, greed, hatred, confusion, ignorance - you will both make a nice contribution to society and make progress on the Path.

Hi @Andrei, I have not understood the answer. I am sorry, I am very new to Buddhism. Could you please elaborate. Thanks!

Does this look better?

Thank you for the write up. I am still confused. If the person is not at peace internally (although he or she knows that what they are doing will bring peace to others) and they suffer while resolving external conflict e.g. the kind of contradiction I mentioned here, how can the person reach enlightenment?

Enlightenment is reached through wisdom that sees beyond the illusion of self. Helping bring others to peace and not worrying about oneself is exactly the kind of practice that brings about the enlightenment.

Thank you so much!

I just want to confirm that I understand your answer- setting goals is good as long as it can resolve internal or external conflicts, as long as it is not motivated by raga, moha, dvesha, mana, irshya. Did I understand it correctly?

As long as it works for the long-term peace and harmony in the lives of others - not just your own and your family.

Re. the examples in the last sentence, many jobs are oriented more to reducing physical suffering or to providing for physical needs -- food, shelter, transport, healthcare.

Right, which I guess is okay too just not as helpful as removing more strategic causes of suffering.

When a person pursues a goal, there are two things to be considered:

The pursuit, which exists only in the past and the future. Pursuit implies a belief that something can be other than it is; it implies an evaluation of the world into the desirable and the undesirable.
The act of doing, which exists only in the present moment. We do, and inevitably we move the world a bit this way or that way.

Now, most (lay) people understand the first. They set their goals and their plans and they forge ahead, muddling through as best they can when they run into moral quandaries. Most (monastic) people understand the second. They understand that every act they make reverberates in karma, so they take great care to tread the middle path. It's a rare and difficult effort to try and grasp both. But it's not impossible.
My general approach is to adopt a 'means justifies the end' model (note the inversion of the old Machiavellian trope...).  If we set goals and make plans, we must remember that the goal is no better (and perhaps worse) than the worst thing we must do to achieve it. If we reach for the best thing we can imagine, but must kill someone to make it happen, then (ipso facto) the goal (the best thing we can imagine) is no better than murder, and thus not worth much at all.
Monastics want to taste the pure, sweet milk of life, so they give up craving completely. Tanhā sours the milk. But for those lay practitioners out there, the sourness of craving can be abated by the sweetness of compassion and care. It isn't perfect, no; but then neither is the world...

And how about bodily considerations. For instance, the practicalities of sustaining the body in modern day society require that one makes short and long term future considerations. For short term one might think, I have these ingredients in my kitchen, how should I combine them to create a source of sustenance and long term one might contemplate their financial affairs for the purpose of sustaining a very basic need to shelter the body from the elements.

@NeuroMax: I guess I'm not quite sure what this is reaching for. Short term goals and long term goals are both goals; this seems to be weighing one 'pursuit' against another. Sustenance is achieved by particular acts of eating food. One could (for the most part) reach into the fridge, grab something at random, eat it with little to no preparation, and still sustain oneself. Or more typically, a monk might put out a begging bowl and consume whatever is received (if anything). It's more about what one chooses to do to put food on the table, then about the food itself.

Yes, apologies. I didn't make that very clear, but thanks for trying to address it.

@TedWrigley, Thank you very much for the write up. I didn't quite understand how thinking that - "If we set goals and make plans, we must remember that the goal is no better (and perhaps worse) than the worst thing we must do to achieve it."- could help me here. Could you please elaborate. Very sorry for the inconvenience.

@incrediblesulk: I'm not sure how much elaboration I can provide.  "Means justify the end" is a rule-of-thumb, meant to make us consider the side effects and collateral damage of our actions. It's easy to recognize what we want, and to see that what we want is (in itself) good. The hard (moral) question is whether the acts we must take to get what we want spoil the 'goodness' of the end itself. That is the nature of dukkha and tanhā: our desires for things that aren't so make us dissatisfied; our cravings and compulsions to be satisfied lead us to actions that cause harm.

@TedWrigley, collateral damage.. I think now I have a better understanding. Thanks so much Ted!

It is impossible to seek escape from suffering and still lead a normal day to day life because escape from suffering requires sincerity in thoughts and deeds towards the liberation goal...you must give up whatever you believe to own.
Having said that you can still try to move towards the goal of life while still leading normal life. First you must recognise Buddha as your guide , someone for whom you tremendous respect. Next you must do whatever you do as something only to reduce , remove the suffering... it can be by sharing the teachings of Buddha or by making products which remove or reduce the suffering of people ... or by protecting the weak and poor .... or by doings things which increase your merit for getting liberated...
There is long list of things you can do to increase merit ...
Serve the people and encourage others to serve as well.
People are best served by protecting the compassionate and being yourself compassionate...
These traits will slowly lead you towards the goal of liberation.

Thank you very much for the write up

I think that people, and especially lay-people, have social relations -- they are and they have children, parents, friends, employers, employees, teachers, students, spouses.
And people inherit a moral obligation to be a good friend, a good parent, a good child, a good employer, and so on -- see DN 31.
Some people decide, "This house-holder's life is confining", and go forth (with their parent's permission) -- where they have fewer of these social obligations, though a lot of Sangha rules.
If you don't meet obligations -- if you're a bad parent, for example, or a bad friend -- then suffering ensues.
There's a sutta, What is the Purpose? (AN11.1) which begins,

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery.
Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:
“Sir, what’s the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics?”
“Ānanda, having no regrets is the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics.”

Perhaps that's similar for laypeople as it is for monks.

Hi @ChrisW, Thanks for the write up. May I ask, what is skillful ethics?

Is having no regrets is the purpose?

As i learned Buddhis texts i had these thoughts:
'Many things are valued by people such as wealth & posessions and these go out of fashion. There are other things valued by people such as wisdom, integrity, hard work and reliability, these do not go out of fashion and are qualities found in people. Many people seek out good qualities in other people but few undertake to develop those qualities in themselves, one who would develop these qualities would be considered to be a gem of a person."
Therefore if we want to create any meaningful value we have no choice but to develop ourselves because if we don't have good in us then we won't be able to win good friends and we can't develop good in other people.
It takes a certain amount of development to see the final goal of Buddhist training but there is a goal and work is finite, once the work is done there is then nothing left for the Arahant to accomplish.
Daily life integration can be about getting into meditation, supporting others and restraining one's own bad traits.

Thank you! I think I understood what you meant

I trust Buddha's teaching is practical in life, not just theory.  Planning and liberation has no contradiction.
layperson with no dhamma knowledge, planned with attachment to the expected outcome.
Planning with expected outcome, attached to the expected outcome, and if the expected outcome is not happening, suffering follow us.  This type of planning do not leads to liberation.  Hence, without attachment to the expected outcome is way for liberation when we plan and when we set goal, thus suffering will not follow us.

The idea of "purpose" is a concept produced by our small minds.  It is a construct, a trap, and an impediment toward liberation.  Freedom is non-purpose.  Nirvana has no meaning.  Enlightenment is not something we work towards.  It isn't something we cultivate or develop.  Becoming is the opposite of being.  See the following:
A monk asked Dasui, "When the kalpa fire flares up and the great cosmos is destroyed, I wonder, will "it" perish, or will it not perish?"
Dasui said, "It will perish."
The monk said, "Then it will be gone with the other?"
Dasui said, "It will be gone with the other."
Blocked by the double barrier,
The monk asked from the heart of the kalpa fire.
Wonderful the words, "It will be gone with the other."
Thousands of miles he wandered in vain, seeking a master.
You are in the heart of the kalpa fire.  Everything is burning, burning.  Wonderful, so wonderful the words - it will all be gone.
It all will be gone.  What purpose is there to fulfill?

Thank you very much!


text:
Is it bad karma if you say something that turns out to be false?
In DN 27, the Buddha said that the Brahmins make bad karma for speaking falsely.

“Actually, Vāseṭṭha, the brahmins are forgetting their tradition when they say this to you. For brahmin women are seen menstruating, being pregnant, giving birth, and breast-feeding. Yet even though they’re born from a brahmin womb they say: Only brahmins are the first caste; other castes are inferior. Only brahmins are the light caste; other castes are dark. Only brahmins are purified, not others. Only brahmins are Brahmā’s rightful sons, born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’ They misrepresent the brahmins, speak falsely, and make much bad karma.

So my question is do you get bad karma if you say something you thought was true but turned out to be false?

No. When it comes to lying, bad karma is not related to the actual truthfulness of what was said.
Rather, it comes from intention. Speaking the untruth intentionally is bad karma and a violation of one of the five precepts. Please see this answer for more details.
From Nibbedhika Sutta:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.

From Iti 25:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you,
there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This:
telling a deliberate lie."

I still don't know the answer. The last sentence does say, literally, "false" (not "divisive") speech -- i.e. "musā ca bhāsanti". So the logical implication seems to be, either that Brahmins speak falsehood "intentionally", or that bad karma is made even without that intention?

@ChrisW It appears that the Pali term used here is indeed about lying although it's not clear to me from the context of the brahmins' statement on how it's about lying.

@rht You could ask the question directly on Buddhism SE. It's a good question.

You should not say things which will turn out to be false or is false intentionally. However if you have said something which turned out to be false unintentionally then it is alright.
Honesty and integrity are the hallmarks of the followers of Buddha.
Sometimes a person is a pathological liar... he doesn’t know that he is lying... he believes that whatever he is saying is true. In such cases it is necessary to reprimand him so that he doesn’t get into or put others into big danger...you can call lying intentionally as bad karma ...

Kamma forms when (1) there is intention, intention of ill will, intention of causing others to quarrel (2) you do it, you really speak in such (3) the result, the speak causing quarrel as it intended to be.
ALL above 3 need to happen to form a bad kamma.
Thus, say something you thought was true (with no bad intention) but turned out to be false due to everything are conditionally arises/ceases, is not a bad kamma, and you do not break the precept.
However, a note here - are you sure "your thought were true", were your intention sincere? were your intention compassionate? were your intention good for you and others (both)?
Referring to Dhammapada 1st verse :
Mind is the chief forerunner of all evil states.
Experiences are led by and produced chiefly by the mind.
If one speaks or acts with a corrupted impure mind,
Suffering will follows just like the wheel of an ox-cart when the ox pulls.


text:
Can we meet the conditions of good feeling again and again?
All our feelings depend on conditions... it is said that conditions are impermanent.... is it possible for us to create conditions for us to have good feelings forever ? If not , why ?
I am not saying good feelings can exist eternally ... I am saying can we create conditions for good feelings? For example by earning money we can ensure that a perpetual supply of food is available.... we fulfill the conditions of money accumulation and in return I get food. Similarly is it possible to work for something which ensures us good feelings forever or at least till we last ?

There are three feelings:

DN34:1.4.11: sukhā vedanā, dukkhā vedanā, adukkhamasukhā vedanā.
DN34:1.4.11: pleasant, painful, and neutral.

Sukhā vedanā (e.g., "joy of sex") is prone to relishing which leads to suffering.

MN1:172-194.26: Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,

How then should we practice?

DN34:1.2.5: What one thing should be developed?
DN34:1.2.6: Kāyagatāsati sātasahagatā.
DN34:1.2.6: Mindfulness of the body that is full of pleasure.

Note that sātasahagatā is not the same as sukhā vedanā. Indeed sātasahagatā is the subtle ease brought about by the relinquishing of stressful grasping at good feeling.
Sātasahagatā can be understood as "frictionless ease". Sātasahagatā is equally applicable to the sublime ease of meditation and it is also applicable to the spinning of a jet engine at full throttle.
So if "good feeling" means "grasping at pleasure", then yes, we can choose delight and suffering endlessly. Yet if we understand "good feeling" as sātasahagatā then we can also understand that right mindfulness leads to extinguishment.

AN8.63:3.1: Yato kho te, bhikkhu, ayaṁ samādhi evaṁ bhāvito hoti bahulīkato, tato tvaṁ, bhikkhu, imaṁ samādhiṁ savitakkampi savicāraṁ bhāveyyāsi, avitakkampi vicāramattaṁ bhāveyyāsi, avitakkampi avicāraṁ bhāveyyāsi, sappītikampi bhāveyyāsi, nippītikampi bhāveyyāsi, sātasahagatampi bhāveyyāsi, upekkhāsahagatampi bhāveyyāsi.
AN8.63:3.1: When this immersion is well developed and cultivated in this way, you should develop it while placing the mind and keeping it connected. You should develop it without placing the mind, but just keeping it connected. You should develop it without placing the mind or keeping it connected. You should develop it with rapture. You should develop it without rapture. You should develop it with pleasure. You should develop it with equanimity.

Sātasahagata itself must be relinquished on the path. Sātasahagata still is tangled with intention. Notice that the Buddha points to equanimity.

If Mindfulness is a condition for good feeling then can we remain mindful forever ?

You quoted from DN34: 'mindfulness of the body that is full of pleasure' - has the word pleasure been translated from sātasahagatā?

I was interrupted by breakfast while posting. Thanks for both helpful comments--the answer has been updated.

Excellent!. ;-)

OyaMist, sorry to come back to this. Speaking figuratively would you say that sātasahagatā can become the lure of Mara's daughters?

@NeuroMax AN8.63 discusses sātasahagatampi extensively but has no specific mention of Mara's daughters (see SN4.25). However, AN8.63 does preface sātasahagatā with "When your mind is steady and well settled internally."  And I think we can both agree that Mara's daughters are definitely not conducive to "steady and well settled internally".

Right. I see. That's helpful. Thanks.

"... is it possible for us to create conditions for us to have good feelings forever ? ..."

This belongs to the Eternalist view (and it's categorized as Wrong view), so no, it's not possible.

I am not saying good feelings can exist eternally ... I am saying can we create conditions for good feelings? For example by earning money we can ensure that a perpetual supply of food is available.... we fulfill the conditions of money accumulation and in return I get food. Similarly is it possible to work for something which ensures us good feelings forever or at least till we last ?

Thanks for the info but it's still not possible - any view/method/perspective containing the word forever is not possible to realize due to Samsara being impermanent.

Feelings are not for sure, intention after feelings are not for sure, touch, causing feelings, is not for sure, objects of feelings are not for sure... but one who knows and sees that what ever feeling, it's conditions, what ever arises around them, aren't for sure, abounds what ever grasphold on feelings, has uprooted touch (of not knowing), giving feelings arise, is one who has entered the secure, good householder.
What does he feel now? Watch out: How conviction in, and understanding of, inconstancy of feeling can lead to stream-entry and to sure.

I have found the answer after thinking about it. Let us say conditions are perpetually creatable... for example happiness occurs after certain conditions are met and as it passes away we recreate the conditions and again we become happy... and so on...
However this is not possible because the conditions are impermanent.... The conditions for happiness must be impermenent.... For example pain killer can be a condition for happiness... but we cant take pain killers perpetually as it is impermanent... pain killers effect and painkiller itself arise , change and vanish... thus creating sadness.
Now the next question is can sadness can be created perpetually ?
I think no.... Suppose you beat someone and again and again then it means you can not beat someone forever.... The person will overcome pain and will return to act like uneffected by pain....like Jesus.... ( I am only guessing)
All conditions are impermanent therefore I am not good feeling , good Feeling is not mine, good Feeling is not my self. (Same for bad feelings and neutral feelings)
Interesting is neutral feelings are also impermanent.... which means there are conditions behind neutral feelings...

I'm happy to see you found out the answer yourself. That's the most valuable approach. If you really want to understand it you need to see it with your own eyes in insight meditation. Thinking about it theoretically won't cause any permanent change in you.

@Andromeda why don’t you change ?

Well, I'm a Dragon and Dragons don't change.

@Andromeda great !!! Happy for you. !!! I am waiting for the changes to happen ... I do not laugh much anymore...

Don't be too hard on yourself. We are all in this together. We are all in the same boat practicing to become free from Samsara. You should be happy that you had the karma to find the path in this life. That's very rare:)

Q1: If your good kamma supported you well, you are able to work for something which ensures your good feelings.  But we do not know our kamma deposit, thus we cannot say for sure "forever or at least till we last".
If you insist, and holding on to the expected outcome i.e. forever or at least till we last, when outcome turn up to be NOT the case, you feel bad and asking "why?", that leads to suffering.  Because not everyday is Sunshine, thus the nature of impermeant.
Q2: Feeling is one of 5 aggregates, and 5 aggregates are not I, not mine, not myself, etc.  hence you are not able to create conditions forever.  All conditions raises and ceases in this samsara, there is no one core, essence, absolute unchanging self that can make things in such way and not in such way, this is the nature of not-self.
By the way, we are continuously here in samsara, because our defiled mind holding onto the wrong view that we are the core, we are the essence, we are absolute unchanging self that can make things in ....


text:
What are Buddhist arguments against Vedic validity because of its authorlessness?
There has been a rich history of debate between Vedantists and Buddhists.
One main method the Vedantist uses disprove every other sect which doesn't hold Vedas as true, is to first prove that Vedas are authorless, then say that authorless Vedas have to be 100% true because the defects of lies and incomplete knowledge cannot be there in authorless, and therefore that whatever in Vedas must be 100% true and any sect which goes against the Vedas must be false.
These are the two steps

Apourusheyatva (Authorlessness)
Swayam Pramanya (Default Validity)

I have heard that various Buddhist scholars like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute the claim of authorlessness of Vedas and its validity.
Supposedly one such argument is there in first chapter of Pramanavarttika, which I couldn't find.

The first chapter discusses the structure and types of formal inference and the apoha (exclusion) theory of meaning. Dan Arnold writes that apoha is: "the idea that concepts are more precise or determinate (more contentful) just to the extent that they exclude more from their purview; the scope of cat is narrower than that of mammal just insofar as the former additionally excludes from its range all mammals in the world that are not cats."[4] In the latter half of this chapter, Dharmakīrti also mounts an attack on Brahmanism, the authority of the Vedas, Brahmins and their use of mantras, and the system of caste (see Eltschinger 2000).[5] He also discusses the role of scripture, which he sees as fallible and yet important for their discussion of “radically inaccessible things” (atyantaparokṣa) such as karma.[6] Dharmakirti critiques the Brahmins thus:
"The unquestioned authority of the Vedas;
the belief in a world-creator;
the quest for purification through ritual bathing;
the arrogant division into castes;
the practice of mortification to atone for sin—
these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men."

So -- what were Buddhist arguments against Vedic validity because of its authorlessness?
I'm interested in logical syllogism of Dharmakirti and the like -- in response to the authorlessness of Vedas.

Edit -- My question is specific: Vedantists have given a syllogistic argument to prove that the Vedas are authorless, and many eminent scholars of Buddhism like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute those syllogistic arguments by logic ... what are those arguments? Please don't answer this question in a general or a philosophical way.

I don’t see how authorlessness can lead to 0% defects and 100% accuracy... are you saying that vedas are a compendium of human knowledge which was modified as new knowledge came in ? If so why haven’t they incorporated Anatta? Anatta is real. Any text which fails to incorporate it is either false or incomplete.

@Sacrificial I'm only stating what the Vedantists believe. Moreover that was not the point of question.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I added the [tag:reference-request] tag -- answers without a reference are off-topic, not an answer.

@ChrisW thanks man for the edit

Maybe modern philosopher Wittgenstein 's  Private Language Argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument) can help explain why a book written in human-sharable public language must have author(s) in the same category of human. Imagine we human are much more advanced than birds, we can know anything birds know, but not vice versa, but we cannot write anything in language or symbols to communicate with birds. As the old saying goes "ghosts in hell see the same water as perished dirts to avoid", so ghosts in hell cannot understand our word "water" as same or similar as ours...

@DoubleKnot this is a beautiful comment. Wittigenstein's theory is subtle and sophisticated. Your application of that to this is wonderful. Kudos.

This excerpt from DN 13 may answer your question sufficiently.

“Well, of the brahmins who are proficient in the three Vedas,
Vāseṭṭha, is there even a single one who has seen Brahmā with their
own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has even a single one of their teachers seen Brahmā with their
own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has even a single one of their teachers’ teachers seen Brahmā
with their own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has anyone back to the seventh generation of teachers seen
Brahmā with their own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, what of the ancient hermits of the brahmins, namely Aṭṭhaka,
Vāmaka, Vāmadeva, Vessāmitta, Yamadaggi, Aṅgīrasa, Bhāradvāja,
Vāseṭṭha, Kassapa, and Bhagu? They were the authors and propagators of
the hymns. Their hymnal was sung and propagated and compiled in
ancient times; and these days, brahmins continue to sing and chant it,
chanting what was chanted and teaching what was taught. Did they say:
‘We know and see where Brahmā is or what way he lies’?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“So it seems that none of the brahmins have seen Brahmā with their own
eyes, and not even the ancient hermits claimed to know where he is.
Yet the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas say: ‘We teach the path
to the company of that which we neither know nor see. This is the only
straight path, the direct route that leads someone who practices it to
the company of Brahmā.’
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? This being so, doesn’t their statement
turn out to have no demonstrable basis?”
“Clearly that’s the case, Master Gotama.”
“Good, Vāseṭṭha. For it is impossible that they should teach the path
to that which they neither know nor see.
Suppose there was a queue of blind men, each holding the one in front:
the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last
one does not see. In the same way, it seems to me that the brahmins’
statement turns out to be comparable to a queue of blind men: the
first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one
does not see. Their statement turns out to be a joke—mere words, void
and hollow.
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Do the brahmins proficient in the three
Vedas see the sun and moon just as other folk do? And do they pray to
them and beseech them, following their course from where they rise to
where they set with joined palms held in worship?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Though this is so, are the brahmins
proficient in the three Vedas able to teach the path to the company of
the sun and moon, saying: ‘This is the only straight path, the direct
route that leads someone who practices it to the company of the sun
and moon’?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“So it seems that even though the brahmins proficient in the three
Vedas see the sun and moon, they are not able to teach the path to the
company of the sun and moon.
But it seems that even though they have not seen Brahmā with their own
eyes, they still claim to teach the path to the company of that which
they neither know nor see.
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? This being so, doesn’t their statement
turn out to have no demonstrable basis?”
“Clearly that’s the case, Master Gotama.”
“Good, Vāseṭṭha. For it is impossible that they should teach the path
to that which they neither know nor see.

This doesn't answer the question. I'm more interested in logical syllogism of Dharmakirti and the like, in response to the authorlessness of Vedas.

Moreover the Vedantists would not say no to the question that Buddha asked. Vedantists hold that the ancient rishis all saw God  and were given Vedas. So the answer would be yes, the ancient Seers have seen and experienced God or Brahman

The answer to my question is supposed to be there in first chapter of Pramanavarttika by Dharmakirti. I could not find it.

A large section of the Tattvasangraha is devoted to arguments for and arguments against the reliability of the Vedas. The Tattvasangraha by the 8th century Buddhist Shantarakshita is an eight-century works detailling on the various philosophical systems from around that time (including both Buddhist and non-Buddhist).
From Wikipedia: “Śāntarakṣita defended a synthetic philosophy which combined Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and the logico-epistemology of Dharmakirti into a novel Madhyamaka philosophical system”.
The first couple of verses of the arguments against goes as follows:

All this is the product of the false pride of the twice-born people. There is no truth in this, even by the slightest change.—(2352)
Even though there is no author, the Veda cannot be regarded as saying what is true;—because it is devoid of those excellences in its source which would make it truthful;—just as in the absence of defects, the word is not regarded as false,—(2353)
It is only in the case of the works of persons that the question arises as to whether the excellences are there or not. hence there is no need for such an enquiry in the case in question; and we have not the slightest idea of there being any excellence at all.—(2354)
Thus, inasmuch as the causes of truthfulness and falsity,—in the share (a) of wisdom and mercy and (b) of absence of mercy, etc.,—are not there, the said two qualities cannot belong to the Veda.—(2355)
Thus the Veda is reduced to futility,—like such sentences as ‘six cakes’.—If it be argued that “meanings are actually comprehended (from Vedic sentences), in respect of actions and active agents”,—[the answer is that] there may be such comprehension in cases where there are explanations supplied by men,—as in the case of the doings of Urvaśī,—even though the words (of the Veda) by themselves do not really convey any such meaning at all,—as held by you.—(2356-2357)