text:
Reducing "suffering" without Buddhist meditation?
If I remember correctly, there are three types of suffering in early Buddhism

ordinary
from change
from conditioning

To prevent ordinary physical and mental suffering, we can avoid certain evils. Something similar must exist with suffering form change: we look after ourselves and stay mindful of the good things in our life. What about suffering form conditioned existence, how everything is put together: I believe it is why even pleasure is suffering, and not just when we lose that pleasure.
Is there any way to reduce this third, deepest, level of suffering, without Buddhist meditation? Apparently only final nirvana without reminder does so, but can we in any sense make that suffering less "prescriptive" (so what if we suffer that way?)

"Conditioned existence" refers to how things are put together — or fabricated, to use the Buddha's word — in the mind, by the mind. This is what matters, not how things arise and pass away in nature, outside of the mind. That's not a cause of suffering, but how we think about it is.
Ven. Sāriputta puts your three "types" of suffering slightly differently:

“There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the
stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the
stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness.”

Sāriputta's three "forms" correspond to the three groups (delimited by semicolons) of stress described by the Buddha , except that the order changes here to change; pain; fabrication:

Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with
the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful,
not getting what is wanted is stressful.

But if you think about the list enough, you may see that fabrication (the third group) points to the origination of stress, and it's also key to comprehending stress.
And comprehending stress is the first duty of the first noble truth. Once you can begin to comprehend the stress created in / by your own mind, you will become more dispassionate, more detached, and suffer less from the process.
You asked for a way to reduce stress without doing meditation, I just gave you it. But if you want to really know for yourself, you have to watch your mind creating stress — that's the main purpose of meditation.
PS. The Buddha details the stress of fabrication in his explanation of not getting what is wanted:

“And what is the stress of not getting what is wanted? In beings
subject to birth, the wish arises, ‘O, may we not be subject to birth,
and may birth not come to us.’ But this is not to be achieved by
wishing. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted. In beings
subject to aging… illness… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress,
& despair, the wish arises, ‘O, may we not be subject to aging…
illness… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, and
may aging… illness… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &
despair not come to us.’ But this is not to be achieved by wishing.
This is the stress of not getting what is wanted."

The bodhisattva Gambhiramati declared, “It is dualistic to say that
voidness is one thing, signlessness is another, and wishlessness still
another. What is void has no sign. What has no sign has no wish. Where
there is no wish there is no process of thought, mind, or
consciousness. To see the doors of all liberations in the door of one
liberation is the entrance into nonduality.”

Vimalakirti Nirdesha Sutra
https://tricycle.org/magazine/dharma-door-nonduality/
If we agree that wishlessness does not suffer the stress of compound existence, then how do we then enter into nonduality? Without meditation, we could - perhaps - this is speculation - be able to in the sense of existing - seeing ourselves - not as a subject but outside time and space; in this sense, if some obligations are nondual, then even without meditation, maybe we can construct ourselves in response to them, and have our character be wishless etc., without that suffering.

Since unpleasing feeling are always related to unskillful actions, suffering-reduction starts much earlier and fundamental by virtue, goodwill (metta), the generosity and further.
Sila, based on metta, is the way of cure and what ever much "meditation" wouldn't fix the base.
As right view acts as the base, good to first of all heal one's ways of thinking, on and on, and in all circumstances, reflecting goodness and go toward gratitude:

There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."
— AN 10.176

Also useful to do not bypass the basic: The Healing Power of the Precepts
Second step, after perfect basic virtue, comes by reducing food, consume (8 precepts)
Third step goes toward sense restrain, higher virtue, reflecting the dangers and not taking on what ever touches.
Fourth step goes on with 24h knowing oneself (s doing): mindfulness in the four frames.
When this stage if complete, right concentration, after passing joy, satisfaction, happiness, comes along by it's causes already given, and leads by itself to highest liberation from suffering as well.


text:
Looking for a quote by the Buddha
In what sutta did the Buddha say: "Don't let the moment pass you by"?
Thanks.

"Don't let the moment pass you by" found in four or more suttas with this google search.
Put differently as, "Death, monks, is but a gap of a thought away," here.

Thanks a lot

I looked up the one in Dhammapada 315:

don’t let the moment pass you by.
khaṇo vo mā upaccagā;

The PTS dictionary entries for khaṇa suggests a dual meaning -- i.e. of "moment" and of "opportunity" -- and translates the phrase as, "let not the slightest time be wasted".
I like that phrasing better, incidentally, because it's more impersonal i.e. without the "you" that's present in the phrase "pass you by".
Also perhaps, does that the fact that "upaccagā" is "aorist" mean that the point of the statement is NOT to detail the process of the moment's passing by -- and is instead a statement that focuses on the whole or result, something like, "don't let it be in a has-passed-by state".

Thanks a lot ChrisW will look it up.

It doesn't sound like the sort of prose you'd find in the pali canon. The general theme for some of the 'serious monks' went like this: After the Dhammacakkappavattana teaching, the Buddha gathered those same monks, and said to them (I'm paraphrasing) "Right guys, from here on, remain with the six sense experience".
This was delivered using a granular description of awareness through something called the five aggregate model. This involves watching experience at one or all of the six sense doors. The idea is to watch with such diligence that the phenomenal world of the six sense organs is seen to pass by without achieving anything.
As you can probably see, this is the opposite of not letting the moment pass you by. In Theravada, watching the six sense experience waxing and waning is seen as a developmental forte that can mean the difference between becoming something weird called an arahant, or just remaining in either in the stream or even a run-of-the-mill person (Puthujjana).
By the way, this kind of practice leads to a lot of emotionally cold and despondent practitioners, which is why I always had my other five fingers firmly stuck inside the Mahayana pie!

doesn't the statement fit perfectly well with what you are saying though?  to watch diligently is to not to let the moment pass by...

Meaning the moment is surrounded by void

@blue_ego - Initially, that is the illusion - the idea that someone is doing the watching, the duality, the game of this & that. The things that are watched are a distraction from the illusion. When you get behind the illusion, nobody is watching anything. The Heart Sutra references this like so: there are no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or mind which highlights centerlessness. There is nothing holding anything.

watching meaning after-the-fact...the momentary consciousness is over. the illusion is persistence of consciousness

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Meditation focus points and their ill effects
During meditation in past, it was observed that if focus is maintained on nostrils, tip of nose and center of forehead(between eyebrows) then it causes cold and cough within 2-3 days of such practice.
Surprisingly, it was observed whenever it was practised.
Tried the same experiment with other fellows at that time, they also had same symptoms, if not sooner then later.
In tipitaka, anywhere mentioned about ill-effects of such combination of meditation focus points?
Are these ill effects or could be something else, not taken into consideration?
Analysis so far-
Kayanupashyana and vednanupashyana both are all about focus, observe, analyse body parts (though not always at single area but bit by bit within whole body). There might be somewhere mentioned about such ill effects, if not then either those suttas were burned off or this assumption is wrong or assumption is correct & it might be due to wrong concentration & observation, "upward air entering as cold & sensing nose part nearby forehead leading to formation of runny nose, cold, cough"

This question is particularly about, "if anywhere mentioned in suttas about various combinations of meditation observable areas that may lead to ill effects, if not done in a particular sequence". Eg. Simultaneously observing or "trying to observe"(focus in short) nose tip, nostrils, forehead center b/w eyebrows while observing breath.

There isn't a single sutta where the Buddha told people to focus on a specific body part when meditating. Three key meditation suttas are the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (MN 10), Mindfulness of Breathing (MN 118), and Mindfulness of Body (MN 119). There's also MN 52 The Man From the City of Aṭṭhaka  that covers 11 different meditations, none of which involve focusing on a body part. Then you have (MN 121) The Shorter Discourse on Emptiness. MN 121 gives directions for the formless attainments. Nothing in it involves focusing on a body part. (MN 111) - One by One goes through the four jhanas and all the formless attainments and also doesn't focus on a body part.
In Mindfulness of Breathing, the Buddha doesn't instruct people to look at the tip of their nose, the center or their belly, or anything else. The same is true for every meditation sutta.
So no, the Tipitaka does not talk about those ill effects, because that is not how the Buddha taught meditation. That said, if you find what you're doing helpful it could fall under the umbrella of Right Effort.
Access to Insight on Right Effort

Nice answer, perhaps the confusion has something to do with ekaggata (one-point, unified  mind) getting reinterpretation. Does Buddha use term ekaggata?

@blue_ego The Buddha used ekaggata. See: https://find.dhamma.gift/result/ekaggataa_suttanta_pali_7-14.html
MN 111 that explains all 4 jhanas and 4 formless attainments is a good one to read.
https://suttacentral.net/mn111/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
Unification of mind does not mean "focusing on your nose".

yes, i found it too, thx...cittekaggatā, used many places

i can see why there is confusion though...MN118@suttacentral says: "at that time they’re meditating by observing an aspect of the body". it's translated more clearly at dhammatalk.org...the body is not the physical body, but a subtle body

@blue_ego I don't believe the subtle body is mentioned in the nikayas. MN 118 has 3 basic parts. 1) It has the beginning which sets the scene, which is, monks practicing diligently and the Buddha giving compliments. 2) It has the directions. 3) it explains how Mindfulness of Breathing is effective. These directions in (2) fulfill the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, which fulfills the Awakening Factors, which fulfills Knowledge and Freedom.

" I tell you, monks, that this—the in-&-out breath—is classed as a body among bodies, which is why the monk on that occasion remains focused on the body in & of itself" hence a subtle body

I’ve used the tip of my nose for 16 years.  Going on that theory, I’d be single-handedly responsible for Tylenol’s continued existence.
Where you focus your mind is ultimately pretty arbitrary.  All you need is something reasonably stable and perennially available.  The tip of your nose generally isn’t going anywhere.  Neither is your hara.  And neither is your left nipple.  I prefer the tip of my nose since it orients my attention forward and seems to “set my mind in front” as advised by the Buddha.
I’d advise against focusing on anything circular like the microcosmic orbit of tai chi as this can lead to really bad upsurges of unfocused energy.  This has actually given me fevers in the past during qi gong work and is ultimately not conducive to calming the mind simply due to its mobility.
And above all else, you aren’t focusing your mind or concentrating.  Instead, simply keep the mind in one spot.  Samadhi literally means to gather together in one place.  If the sheep wander off, go retrieve them.  But don’t crush them into the ground with your boot once you have them corralled.

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


text:
length vs number of times of meditation
Is doing 10 min meditation 6 times same as doing 1 hour meditation? Or is doing 30 mins 4 times same as 2 hour meditation ?

Shoot for the hour.  It takes the mind about 25–30 minutes to really settle.  It’s a lot like impurities settling out of a glass of water.  Just being on the cushion and not allowing your mind to kick up other detritus by doing willful activity allows it to move into a deeper state of calm.  You almost don’t even have to do any “concentration” work those first 30 minutes.  It happens almost on its own.
After that first 30 minutes, you’re going to find that it’s much easier to follow whatever meditation object you’ve selected.  Your thoughts race less and the object is more stable.  You are also going to feel much, much better at the end of the session.
But!  90 minutes is really the sweet spot.  In Zen temples, they used to meditate for the time it takes two incense sticks to burn down - about 45 minutes a piece.  I think the Tibetans have a similar time standard.  After an hour, provided that you’ve sat straight through without moving, piti (a kind of energy current that can sometimes be exhilarating) starts to arise.  Depending on the level of your practice, your body might start shaking, you might feel like you want to jump up off the cushion, or, if you’re advanced, you can surf that current, relax into it, and let it dissolve into incredible bliss.
Doesn’t 90 minutes sound great?  Do 90 once you’re able to.  But start with 60.  Long unbroken sitting is always better than short intermittent sits.

Ultimately the goal is to be lucid, clear thinking, relaxed, calm all the time, any posture, any activity.
So the question you ask, those differences are relatively minor and irrelevant to the main goal.
Only if your goal is to attain certain deep samādhi states is contiuous single long session of relevance.

There are no specific limitations or rules regarding meditation. You can practice "samatha" meditation for a healthier mind, "metta" to reduce hatred and find inner peace, and "vipassana" to gain insight into the true nature of life. All these meditation techniques aim to accumulate positive karma.
If you engage in "samatha" and "metta" meditation, you will generate positive karma. On the other hand, practicing vipassana not only accumulates positive karma but also cultivates the skill to break the cycle of rebirth.
As a Buddhist, meditation is always beneficial. However, your choice of meditation should align with your goals, and the frequency of your practice should suit your individual needs.

https://suttacentral.net/mn62/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=main&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin#18.1

I have bought a new heavy duty motor pump, I use that in fields to pull water from earth.

During initial days, it needs to be settled properly so using for few minutes or so at regular or irregular intervals might damage the motor. It needs to be run properly under controlled voltage and for ample time.
Similarly, adhittahana ripes and more likeliness arise if meditation is done for long time instead of few minutes.

If during initial days, motor is given excess load by using for longer time then it might damage itself badly, same way for meditation if done by a newbee might do damage instead of good.

After enough time and once it's settled, motor can be used for small durations.. similar way meditation can be done for short intervals depending upon the spare time one gets or it can be done while doing some work too.

But as it's heard that meditation is more than this materialistic motor as once a meditator ripes, it can be done for days too.
So choose time wisely, can start with 30 minutes to 1 hour to few hours and then according to need, will, time from few minutes to days.

Meditating one minute per day at the same time of day every day for 30 days is much more powerful than meditating 30 minutes on one day only.

I think Both have different impacts.
Also, these two are dependent.
You can't do continuous 60 min meditation directly without practicing if regularly. and to practice, you have to start from small (like 5 or 10 min.)
If you are new, stick to the small length meditation regularly. if you are able to meditate successfully for small time, increase the time.
Specifically for your question, I think small meditations are best.


text:
I don't understand bodhicitta
I have difficulty with the notion of bodhicitta and the concept of Boddhisattva, and the difference with the concept of Buddha. If I understand correctly, the idea is to have an altruistic intention in one's practice: to seek liberation not for oneself, but for all sentient beings.
I can understand the usefulness of having an altruistic intention as a basis for one's practice, but I have the impression that for Mahayana this must be taken as a real objective: however, it is held in Buddhism that samsara has no beginning and no end, therefore neither does ignorance, and that there will never be a moment when all beings will be liberated. In the same way, the practitioner who attains enlightenment obtains it only for himself, and cannot give it to others like a deity who would offer a grace: "each one is his own refuge".
So what is the real scope of bodhicitta? Is it only a pious wish? How can one truly believe that one is really practicing for the liberation of the world and not only one's own, if one knows for a fact that awakening is always "personal" and that samsasra will always exist? If the idea is only to awaken in order to be able to teach others, this is what a Buddha does and there is no need for the concept of Boddhisattva for that. If the idea is to help others and to have a mind radiating compassion, this is also what a Buddha  does with the brahmavihara and I don't see the difference with the Bodhisattva.

So what is the real scope of bodhicitta

It is actually a multilayered concept.
Firstly (for Mahayana) generating (what I know as) Aspiring Bodhicitta (which is a general wish to be free from samsara on the behest of all sentient beings) when one does dharma study and practice creates much more "merit" than if one does not create this desire or only created a desire to be free from samsara for oneself while/before studying and practicing.
Secondly, creating Aspiring Bodhicitta creates the karma and proclivity towards compassion so that eventually, spontaneously, one attains (what I know of) Engaging Bodhicitta this "actual" Bodhicitta IS the Bodhicitta that will be the drive, forever more, to seek liberation (to become a Buddha, not an Arhant) solely for the benefit of all sentient beings. When one actually experiences this unique mindstate, Engaging Bodhicitta, this is the mindstate that the Buddha himself experienced which propelled him forth to become a samosambuddha, who of course was able to help (at least) sentient beings (humans) in this world system. Then like how the Buddha mentioned of himself before he was liberated, after this Bodhicitta, one becomes a Bodhisattva, a person destined for buddhahood.
So in laymans terms, having a general desire to become a Buddha when you do dharma practice or study eventually will lead you a powerful internal experience where you will have true conviction (motivated by compassion for all living beings) that you will help them become liberated, by becoming a Buddha for their sake. At that point forward, you are then a Bodhisattva.
Unfortunately it seems quite a few sects of Mahayana, or even possibly all, but I am thinking specifically of Tibetan Mahayana, because of Gampompas egotistical comments based of the lotus sutra parable of the burning house, there is disdain for the "Hinayana" the "lesser path" of actual disciples of the Buddha, Arhants who are seen as not truly liberated and not free from samsara, that only a Buddha, via attaining the Engaging Bodhicitta is actually free. For them nibbana is not liberation, there is still more to do.
So one would assume that the people who put so much stock into Bodhicitta also have the intellectual delusion that only via attaining Engaging Bodhicitta and going through the 10/16 bhumi can they themselves be liberated from samsara.
Personally I feel that this entire concept was created by "lesser" men, not taught by the Buddha himself and seeing there was no Buddha around to verify these concepts, they are essentially fiction or philosophy created by possibly puttajhanna, or path sotapannas in various Buddhist countries in the past. (assuming a fruit attainer sotapanna...onwards would already know the path to liberation as they have seen the goal so would never add to or change the Buddhas teachings, creating an entire new concept)
If one scrutinises Bodhicitta in the framework of Buddhas teachings, dependant origination, 5 aggregates and 2nd noble truth specifically, it seems to me that Bodhicitta is a mistake. A virtuous desire, but a desire non the less. It seems to me that Bodhicitta is in fact bhava-taṇhā
I also do have practical experience with both types of Bodhicitta as I originally studied and practice Mahayana, just mentioning it so that you may take this as not purely academical or intellectual conclusions of the concept.
There is also a paradoxical statement in the Lotus sutra (I forget where, but possibly chapter 2) where the gist is that when one attains a high level on the bodhisattva path and understanding of emptiness one sees that there are no actual beings to have compassion for, in turn, no beings to save, negating Bodhicitta completely and in turn negating ones own "Bodhisattvahood".
The concept is blasély brushed over with "lol just have compassion for them anyway" or something in that vein.
Which for me is illogical and goes "against" the core function of what the Buddha taught being logical reality based upon the empirical evidence anyone is able to obtain through being scientific within their own mind. Essentially a belief system! Something the Mahayana is conflicted with, because of being intertwined with pagan, hindu, and colloquial belief systems.

Bodhicitta quite simply means to see things like the Buddha would have seen them.
In the basic sense, it means to be extremely empathetic and sensitive to suffering experienced by other beings. This empathy automatically translates into natural unforced tendency to avoid harming or hurting other beings, and to protect them from harm whenever possible.
When applied to the Buddhist Path, this wish to protect becomes an aspiration to get to the bottom of The Big Mystery of Enlightenment, in order to become capable of truly helping the sentient beings at the most fundamental level as opposed to only providing superficial tactical help.
Finally in the post-Enlightenment, to see things like the Buddha means to see things with the same understanding, to directly see the True Natural Dharma, which of course includes seeing Anatta and Shunyata (Emptiness), among other things.
I see the points you made in your question: why wish for Enlightenment to be able to teach others if we already have the Buddha's teaching? Why have a separate concept for what seems very similar to Brahma-Vihara? Why have a separate word for a Boddhisattva? Why help others if each is his own refuge?
To these I answer so:
Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to teach from the first hand realization as opposed to teaching from theory? Wouldn't that be more productive and more beneficial to the beings who's pain we want to reduce?
Why get stuck on the metaphor of Brahma Abode (=Brahma's perspective) that Buddha repurposed from religious beliefs popular at his times, as an illustration that would make sense to his contemporaries, if we can refer to Buddha's mind as a perfect role model for his students?
Or perhaps you can coin your own concepts picking your own metaphors. After all, it's the essence that matters while the words are just teaching aids.
When one is committed to finding and passing on the essence, as opposed to finding and passing on the words, we call such person a Bodhisattva.
True, Bodhisattvas can't bestow Enlightenment onto people, but they can try to help as much as they can. Why help at all? Bodhicitta! It is painful to see all this suffering, and helping others with Dharma provides a relief. And when the next generation of students learns to see, they too see the suffering of others and have the spontaneous wish to help. It's a kind of virtuous circle, the Wheel of Dharma.

This is not an answer but just a note to the question....
As per my understanding so far, unless and until one realizes that everything boils down to person's own dukkha, one won't be able to free.
Doesn't matter if it's bodhicitta or Bodhisattva.
Yeah, they can continue to try to benefit world or try to make circumstances better for deep meditation, but until they realized dukkha is there in everything, this suffering cycle won't stop.
For example, realization at physical body form can be at sensational level or at mental level, in citta body form it could be at dhamma level (not sure) or at mental level or at pleasing ignorance level..
So no matter, how much one tries to do good for outside world or try to put others or redirect others towards samatha, liberation will only be realized upon realization of dukkha, origin and reasons behind dukkha, resolution/ cessation of those origins and reasons, path for that resolution of origins.
Leaving behind anyone of them would also lead back to dukkha.
Only question left is, "how exactly to lead to these 4 points". So, there could be various ways and experiments and most likely successful would be the one having most samatha with good process (5 precepts from body to citta to dhamma level) to that samatha.
These ways might be the fulfillment of paramitas.

This question is tied to self-view. At earlier stages of practice — before one has started to get the emptiness of self-view — the question of the self's relationship to the world is troubling. Some believe that the self should be extinguished to escape the wheel of (a personal) karma; others believe the self should be retained as a fiction to help others escape their own (personal) karma; yet others (outside of buddhism) hold other beliefs. But all of these are ways the self establishes identity and perpetuates itself. The beliefs are not real.
When one sees that 'self' is an empty concept, one starts to see that there is nothing 'personal' about karma, and then the goals of Theravada and Mahayana become the same: liberation from karma. It makes no sense to distinguish between 'our' karma and 'their' karma; to free oneself is to free others, and vice-versa. These are merely different approaches, a difference that has meaning to those still attached to identity, but not to those who've left the attachment behind. To extend the common metaphor, there are many different boats that can get you across the river, but whichever gets chosen will ultimately be left behind on the far shore.


text:
Is the Tipitaka considered infallible in Theravada Buddhism?
Would most Theravada monks consider the Tipitaka infallible?
For example, would most agree with these statements?

All Scripture is... useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...
Modified from 1 Timothy 3:16

You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true... You know that nothing unjust or counterfeit is written in them.
Modified 1 Clement 45:2-3

The noble disciple has faith in the Dhamma (the teachings), including in the truth of the Dhamma, and also takes refuge in the Dhamma.

"He (the noble disciple) possesses unwavering faith in
the Dhamma thus: 'Well propounded by
the Blessed One is the Dhamma, evident, timeless, inviting
investigation, leading to emancipation, to be comprehended by the
wise, each for himself.'
DN 16

A Dhamma follower accepts the Dhamma only after learning it, and reflecting upon it.

“What kind of person is a Dhamma-follower? ... but those teachings
proclaimed by the Tathāgata are accepted by him after reflecting on
them sufficiently with wisdom. Furthermore, he has these qualities:
the faith faculty, the energy faculty, the mindfulness faculty, the
concentration faculty, and the wisdom faculty. This kind of person is
called a Dhamma-follower.
MN 70

But the Tipitaka is not the same as the Dhamma.
Monks and lay followers don't consider the Tipitaka infallible or incorruptible. The words of the Buddha as written in the suttas are not considered the verbatim words of the Buddha, as they may have been paraphrased for ease of memorization (please see this answer for details). Furthermore, the Buddha did not speak Pali. Rather he spoke Prakrit dialects similar to it.
The meaning is more important than the phrasing:

The venerable ones agree about the meaning but differ about the
phrasing. The venerable ones should know that it is for this reason
that there is agreement about the meaning but difference about the
phrasing. But the phrasing is a mere trifle. Let the venerable ones
not fall into a dispute over a mere trifle.’
MN 103

Sometimes, later additions to the Tipitaka are acknowledged by the Tipitaka commentaries. You can probably consider them counterfeit, but they are few and insignificant.
There may also be minor contradictions between some suttas.
The most important point is that the Dhamma can be understood from a significantly large part of the Tipitaka. All of the Tipitaka are not true or useful, but all of the Dhamma is true and useful.
But none of it is unjust.
From the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" by Ven. Sujato and Ven. Brahmali:

Both the EBTs (Early Buddhist Texts) and the later tradition, then,
quite readily acknowledge that some discourses were not spoken by the
Buddha. In some cases, such as the final verses of the Mahāparinibbāna
Sutta, this could not have been otherwise, as the context is after the
Buddha’s passing away. In other cases, however, such as the verses of
the Lakkhaṇa Sutta, even though the Sutta features the Buddha himself,
the commentary is still happy to acknowledge that the verse were added
later. The fact, therefore, that in the majority of cases there is no
acknowledgement of lateness tends to authenticate these text as having
the historical Buddha as their origin.

Also from section 4.4.1 of the same book:

These episodes, and others, could easily have been edited out, but
they were kept despite their awkwardness and their not fitting with
later ideas. This indicates that the attitude towards preserving the
EBT was very conservative.

It is not supposed to be infallible, it is supposed to be experienced and understood through actual practice.
Most of what is taught in the tipitika, the actual practical advise is meant to be put into practice to see its merits, not intellectually understood or just believed, like the bible quotes you have posted.
Assuming you have not studied the tipitika, I will state that Buddhas teachings are empirical evidence of reality, where as christs teachings are often pleasant platitudes and most of the bibles statements are simply belief orientated content.
Still there is wisdom in the bible as well as similarities with the Buddhas teachings
Corinthians 12:15 seeming to be sunyata explanation for an example.
(some theories is that christ studied with the essenes in the road to damascus story, with the essenes being generally accepted as a sect of Buddhists)

So do you think that there is anything unjust and counterfeit in the Tipitaka? Or that any part of it is not profitable for teaching and training?

"it is supposed to be experienced and understood through actual practice.
Most of what is taught in the tipitika, the actual practical advise is meant to be put into practice to see its merits, not intellectually understood or just believed,"
Most Christians will agree with this, they will say that you have to live out the teachings of the Gospels.

No and I do not know where you came to that conclusion? As far as I have found, the first 4 books (nikayas) of the tipitika are the actual teachings of the Buddha, orally transmitted before being committed to writing, the last book is a mix of commentaries, some speculation of what the Buddha said, some things attributed to what the Buddha said and new works created by the early members of the sangha. The last book is not fraudulently mentioned that it is the words of the Buddha either.

I asked that because you seemed to disagree with the statements I put in the original post.

Most cristians do not even study Jesuses teachings, neither do they practice his teachings. I have read every single word that jesus ever taught and there is very little actual practical practise at all. Most of what you would "practice" in a christian church isn't even anything taught by jesus at all too. These are rites and rituals created by lesser men. In fact even going to church is somewhat "against" jesuses teachings, he had disdain for churches (synagogues) as "the kindom of god is inside you, no bigger than a mustard seed" as well as Mark 11:15-18

That's a matter of interpretation. But, regardless, do you believe that all of the Tipitaka is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, and that nothing unjust or counterfeit is written in them?

You are coming at it from a wrong perspective and not understanding what I stated. You seem to Kind of I guess looking in a Christian sense. so you are asking if the Buddhas teachings (tipitika) is possibly full of error (fallible) as the same way you could find error easily in jesuses teachings, but the thing is, Buddhas teachings are not meant to be believed like jesuses teachings, they are meant to be PRACTISED, to full EXPERIENCE, so that you can SEE FOR YOURSELF the truth, or fallibility of the wisdom. This is one of the major differenced with Abrahamic and Vedic (buddhist) religions.

"do you believe that all of the Tipitaka".... I do not fully know. What I can say of for certain that is except for the intracies of karma (something the Buddha never actually taught) one can understand and experience all of the actual practical teachings in of itself. Sunyata negates self, negates god, is logically sound, dependant origination is infallible. I cannot say what moral discipline brings and righteousness is subjective but i would say that practising Buddhist moral discipline has (slightly) benefited my life.

Would most Buddhist monks agree with you?

I cannot speak for other people, and it depends on their level of understanding. I myself am just a low level person who is dedicated to seeking liberation from existence. Others may already be liberated. This forum will allow others to give their own opinion in time (though I do not imagine many ordained members of the sangha use this forum)
I would probably assume that anyone who was ordained in the theravada tradition sees no fault and only sound logic in everything the Buddha taught as I myself an quite highly intelligent and critical and have found no fault myself.

Has any association of Buddhist monks released a statement on this position?

According to the Tipitaka -- more specifically the suttas -- the Buddha himself explained how to assess whether something is true.

One is, "when you know for yourselves" -- see for example Kalama Sutta including the Translator's note
Another is The Four Great References, which implies that sentences should be:

"studied"
"traceable in the Discourses" (which I think means, "matching what's said elsewhere")
"verifiable by the Discipline" (which I think means, "can be experienced in practice")

A couple of examples:

This answer summarises a study -- by academics, who are not that I know of monks -- of a very minor element of doctrine, i.e of one list-item in a list, which suggests this list-item is maybe a later insertion and not original doctrine of the Buddha (including for reasons given in the Four Great References)
This answer by a monk suggests that some people take some parts more literally than perhaps they should
This answer lists examples of various "suttas of indirect meaning" i.e. which people might misunderstand unless they're properly explained -- so apparently, even if the Tipitaka itself were infallible, the audience interpreting it are not necessarily.

Perhaps the idea of infallibility -- e.g. that it's conceivable or that it's important question -- belongs more to "people of the Book" e.g. "papal infallibility" by the Catholics, "biblical fundamentalism" by others, the Koran being literally the word of God, and so on.
I think that some have respect for the Vinaya at least -- taking every word of that literally.

It’s infallible in the same way that a car repair manual is infallible.  The instructions provided therein are for the maintenance and proper use of your mind in the context of Buddhist practice.  If you elect to drive or service a different vehicle, they’re of little use.  Likewise, any musings in the sutras that aren’t about Buddhist practice (e.g. cosmology) aren’t always taken at face value just as I wouldn’t necessarily trust a car repair manual writer who started musing about the best way to fry a donut.  His opinions may be valid, but it’s not his area of expertise.


text:
My parents want me to get married, should I honor their request if I'm not interested in marriage?
I come from a culture where marriage is seen as a must. Both of my parents are good parents, they never harm me in anyway, took a very good care of me. I am now almost 30 and they really want me to get married and have a kid, they love children. I can't blame them because it's all they've ever known in their life -- once you become an adult, marriage and having a kid is a must.  I am also the first child and have always been single in all my life.
However I don't see marriage as a necessity. I'm not very interested in sex nor having a kid. In my mind, I just want to live a single life so I can achieve financial freedom faster (no kids and wife) then I will donate to charities and spend my time doing things I enjoy instead of always chasing more money (it's tiring), I want to do more charity work than working for money. I take care of my parents but to take care a wife and kids I'm not very interested. Let's be realistic... kids are not cheap.
What's the Buddhism view on this..? am I egotistical?

The sutta quote below explains the duties of lay children to their parents and parents to their children. It's based on the cultural norms of Indian society in 500 BCE.
Children should maintain the kulavamsa, which can be translated as "family traditions" and also as "family lineage" based on the PTS Pali-English dictionary entries on kula-vansa and vansa.
Parents should "connect their children with a suitable partner", implying arranged marriage, which again, is a common practice 2500 years ago in India.

A child should serve their parents as the eastern quarter in five
ways, thinking: ‘I will support those who supported me. I’ll do my
duty for them. I’ll maintain the family traditions. I’ll take care of
the inheritance. When they have passed away, I’ll make an offering on
their behalf.’
Parents served by the children in these five ways show compassion to
them in five ways. They keep them from doing bad. They support them in
doing good. They train them in a profession. They connect them with a
suitable partner. They transfer the inheritance in due time. Parents
served by their children in these five ways show compassion to them in
these five ways. And that’s how the eastern quarter is covered, kept
safe and free of peril.
Sigalovada Sutta or Singala Sutta (DN 31)

The same thing here:

“Bhikkhus, considering five prospects, mother and father wish for a
son to be born in their family. What five? (1) ‘Having been supported
by us, he will support us. (2) Or he will do work for us. (3) Our
family lineage will be extended. (4) He will manage the inheritance,
(5) or else, when we have passed on, he will give an offering on our
behalf.’ Considering these five prospects, mother and father wish for
a son to be born in their family.”
AN 5.39

This is of course not mandatory, as adults could also choose to become monks and anagarikas who obviously don't usually marry or have children. Anyone who marries and has children before becoming monks, would have to abandon their families in pursuit of the monastic life.
Also, it's important to note that one could become a monk or nun, only with the explicit permission of all their living parents. If your parents forbid you from becoming a monk, then you will never be allowed to join the monastic order.
For those interested in monasticism:

'I have sons, I have wealth' —
the fool torments himself.
When even he himself
doesn't belong to himself,
how then sons?
How wealth?
Dhp 62

Either way, one shouldn't waste their youth and should use it fruitfully. But the verse below talks about gaining wealth and not about getting married and having a family.

Neither living the chaste life
nor gaining wealth in their youth,
they waste away like old herons
in a dried-up lake
depleted of fish.
Neither living the chaste life
nor gaining wealth in their youth,
they lie around,
misfired from the bow,
sighing over old times.
Dhp 155 - 156

"Chaste life" above means holy life or monastic life.

You might also mention getting parents' permission before ordaining.

@ChrisW Thanks Chris. That would be useful info.

Regarding ordination, it is possible to change your parents' minds. For example, going on a hunger strike.

@triplej Yes, I remember reading about a monk who convinced his parents by going on a hunger strike but I don't remember where I read this.

@ruben2020 2 questions for thought: 1) are all the cultural norms of 2500BCE India/Nepal to be maintained today? Seems to me a 'yes' answer could lead to some interesting current changes to practices while a 'no' might allow for her to live her life the way she wishes. 2) If a parent can give up the right to children being married and having children (who could fulfill the 5); why cannot she give up children (and marriage)?

@ruben2020 "Then Ratthapala, not getting his parents' permission to go forth from the household life into homelessness, lay down right there on the bare floor, [saying,] "Here will be my death or my going-forth." And he went without food for one day... two days... three days, four... five... six days. He went without food for seven days." ~ MN 82 (Ratthapala Sutta)

I marked this answer down because its statement "based on cultural norms" is unsubstantiated & sounds like a personal opinion rather than the view of a Buddha.

For practicing Buddhists, the Teachings of the Buddha provide only two options relating to sex:

Celibacy
Fidelity

If you wish to remain a celibate layperson, Buddhism does not discourage this. When the Teachings for laypeople encourage children to carry on the tradition of their parents, this naturally does not exclude becoming a monk or nun or remaining celibate. What it discourages is an immoral life.

Get married or become a bikkhu/bikkhuni.  you can look at Fidelity as an application of loving-kindness without condition for your spouse, an excellent way to train on your current turn of samsara.  I cannot think of any Buddhist laypeople having any regrets on having children, another application of loving-kindness.  I think the world needs more minds following the eight-fold path.
The expense of a spouse, children, and family maybe high, but so is the reward.  You will not regret it.

"You will not regret it."
This encouragement would be fine if the OP expressed doubts or hesitation. However, since they have made it clear that they have no interest in children, it's reasonable to assume they would regret it.
To improve this answer, I feel you need to more directly address their key concern: that they have an obligation to fulfill and that they are being egoist by not fulfilling it.


text:
Are you familiar with a particular AN or SN sutta on bowing?
There is a sutta AN or SN, I believe, I read months ago that discussed about a kingsman who wanted to give respect to the Buddha by bowing but couldn't because he would lose a good job, family, and reputation. He went to The Blessed One to pay respect but told him that, instead of bowing, when he rides on his horse and tips his hat, that is the sign that he is bowing to The Blessed One. He gives other like signs to hide the respect he wanted to give The Buddha by bowing. The Buddha's religious neighbors in town questioned The Buddha and were particular about the Blessed One's teachings and practice, and, thus, opposed anyone who followed The Buddha would be opposing the religious teachings of the land.
The Buddha didn't complain. Like other suttas, there is a lot of repetition, but the main message is it doesn't matter how you do X action it's your intentions that count.
I ask because in western culture bowing in respect to others isn't common. Shaking hands or eye to eye contact takes precedent. We may nod our heads when acknowledging a person equally (say walking pass each other) but not insofar out of hierarchy (spiritual, political, etc). To many it can be seen as an act of submission; but, in general, people usually "bow" to people closer to them than they would strangers.
With that in mind, this sutta I can't find really caught my attention about The Buddha looking at intentions rather than requiring the practice of his teachings be congruent with the cultural norms in his day.
-Specifically, I am looking for that particular sutta or one very close to it. Any of you familiar with this story?

Answered for those with proper regards.
Bowing down, falling of respect (toward what's proper to), is nowhere common. Noble culture and common, are of cause not the same.
The retold story seems to be merely a tale from outsiders, and there are instances where the Sublime Buddha even urged to bow down.
To get formal integrated into the heritage, bowing down counts as a prerequisite.
Within the Buddhaparisa (like with every community), paying regards isn't a generosity but a matter of virtue (Sila). Of course, for one not yet into, there are no must's at all and one is free to either give into, or not.
And other then western, modern believes, things start to be trained from gross to fine, not otherwise. Before developing mind, speech, before speech, body is required to be developed.
If one bows down to one, that's a very serious account, like if one adopts a child, gives one refuge, when accepted. If one tries to think in skillful ways, and right objectivity, one can easy see the blessing of right view, right regards, and knows how much such goes against one's defilements.
Just think how often and many people bow down for most low, say fleshy coupling...
How clear and consequent the matter actually is, and how one cut himself actually of when in not so good thinkings groups (like modern, western ones) might be shown well on the Sublime Buddhas advices for his monks: Groups to avoid, to approach
Much success in finding ways to overcome doubts!

Thank you. The story I'm referencing is specific story in the nikayas (SN or AN). There wasn't an interpretation of what it meant (I didn't get a commentary). However, in the story it wasn't that the kingsman didn't want to give respect or felt negative about bowing. It was, in his case, wasn't in his best interest. So, he told The Buddha don't think that I'm not respecting you by not physically bowing. Know that I'm respecting you by tipping my hat (or so have you). The moral implied that intentions (mind) count just as much if not more than actions (body). Body/Speech/Mind.


text:
Completion of paramitas
Is it possible to complete all paramitas without physically doing anything?
If so, then how & where is it mentioned in tipitaka?
In previous birth, while bowing down to dipankara, Gautama thought that if he wants he can destroy all dukkha just now and liberate.. how?
Or these paramitas are for someone aspiring to be self enlightened only? If yes then sutta-refence.

This doesn't directly answer your question, but some pointers in the right direction and a nitpick about terminology: paramitas (skt) are generally a Mahayana thing, not Theravada, though they are mentioned (pāramīs in Pali) in a few places in KN: the Buddhavaṃsa 1 and 2, Apadāna, and Cariyāpiṭaka 1 (a link with some references).

No, paramitas cannot be achieved without physically doing anything. As one example, paramita of morality- silaparamita- requires perfection of sila- sila is performed at three levels- body, speech and mind. The sila of body requires includes physical acts. There are other ways to demonstrate that without doing anything physically, paramitas cannot be accomplished.


text:
Couples should couples refrain from sex on first day of New Years
My fiancé in VN tells me couples must refrain from sex on first day of new year. I have not found anything supporting this claim. Where do I find more information about no sex on day one new year.

I guessed it might be related to observing the 8 precepts on Uposatha days -- but that's the full moon, whereas the Lunar New Year starts on the first new moon of the calendar.

@ChrisW According to the Wikipedia page on Uposatha, both full moon and new moon days are Uposatha days in most Theravada countries. So the 8 precepts hypothesis makes sense.

Chinese new year falls on New-moon Uposatha, so good, if not always, observing it. Nothing wrong, but the opposite, to follow the whole life without "Dhamma of the villagers".


text:
Do all Dhamma teachings aim us at release?
I read the statement recently that all Dhamma teachings aim to produce disenchantment, for the purpose of release / unbinding.
Any thoughts on this subject are welcome, but my question is: Which suttas talk about this? And preferably, in a way that clearly supports the writer's claim.

All of the Dhamma teachings result in reduction of suffering.
But not all of the Dhamma teachings result in complete liberation.
The right view with effluents (MN 117) is targeted at beginners (especially lay persons).
However, according to SN 42.7, the Buddha taught the whole Dhamma to everyone, including lay persons.
So, a person can start with the right view with effluents, and later progress to the noble right view.

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

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

Thanks. SN 42.7 is pleasing to a "laymen."

Do all Dhamma teachings aim us at release?

In a broad sense, yes, they do. In the Sutta pitaka we read about meditation practice, concentration, how to be mindful, let seeing just be seing etc.
In the Vinaya pitaka we learn about all the rules and precepts, the ethics so to say, and the ethics is what gives rise to calm and concentration.
The concentration lets us realize and understand the mind which is taught in the Abhidhamma pitaka, e.g. the 89 minds, the 52 cetasikas etc. Wisdom is what sets the mind free and issues liberation from the rounds of suffering.

Thanks. Nice pic.

Yes, without exception, when spoken to in regard of the world, equal and lower. Yet, no, in regard of striving for higher and release, the Gems, the practice, good attitudes for all that. And one would be required to leave first, to understand it's clearance, otherwise on would just use any reference to maintain his house, stand.

Not sure that I understand. Possibly lost in translation. Reference?

@stick-in-hand He is advising you to renounce the world and become a monk or nun, and not use the teachings to remain a householder.

@stick-in-hand And perhaps the beginning is saying, "Yes, 'disenchantment' towards the (equal and lower) world; but, not 'disenchantment' towards what's higher, i.e. Right Effort, the Three Jewels, the Noble Path, etc." and then "But you would need to leave (home) first" e.g. go a monastery.

@ruben2020 Thanks, you seem certain. In that case, he's misunderstood the question when he says "Yet, no..." I never said disenchantment with anything in particular. I'm talking about disenchantment as a cause. It's very clear in the question. Or, he's using the forum to voice an irrelevant personal opinion, on how other people should live. Either way, this answer should disappear, or be downvoted, so that nobody misunderstands it to have any merit.

One not leaving his stand, not giving up, e.g. no Saddha, isn't fit to be taught, as he pulls all just into his house of identification. Total Disenchantment (vipassana) is effect of the right path, comes right before release.


text:
can MN.43 be my alibi?
“Friend, these five faculties—each with a separate range, a separate domain, not experiencing one another’s range & domain: the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty—have the intellect as their (common) arbitrator. The intellect is what experiences (all) their ranges & domains.”
Alternative translation for the last line:

“These five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to the mind. And the mind experiences their scopes and ranges.”
They are restored in the mind and it partakes the pasture commonly.
mind is the repository, and mind reacts to their pasture and range.”

what does it mean?  Is it yogacara in a nutshell?  they say mind-only, mere representation....or maybe it means that the pasture was not good enough to contain my evilness?
here is another wacky one from the wikipedia:

These internal sense bases (internal faculty) are not the gross organs
themselves (e.g., the eye, ear, etc.), but subtle matter within them.

I don't understand how that bit of the sutta might be related to "alibi" or "evil" so I don't understand the question. And I don't think it says "mind-only", I mean it only says that the mind experiences each of the senses.

You can't change the question completely after it has been answered. I prefer if you rollback the changes back to the old question and create a new question for your latest question instead.

@ChrisW said it’s lawful to do this

I think I referenced this help topic which suggests you edit to improve the question -- but which also says, " Don't invalidate existing answers".

I didn't understand the original question, but existing answers answered it literally -- "can it be my alibi" and "is it yogacara" -- so maybe it can't be edited (editing would be unfair to the people who took time to answer the previous version of the question). Might you want to repost this as a new question?

can i use strikethrough html? the title can remain as is

The Buddha didn't offer alibis from past wrong doings, he offered us permanent escape, and release from evil unskillful tendencies / qualities. He said we should abandon our unskillful ways. And that we should develop new and more skillful abilities / qualities. When we do this, we will discern the drawbacks and suffering caused by our old ways, and let them go more easily. It's not a matter of brute force, it's more like: from the arising of this comes the arising of that, and, from the ending of this comes the ending of that.
He says so in The Vajjian Monk - Vajjiputta Sutta  (AN 3:85):

“Monk, can you train in reference to the three trainings: the training
in heightened virtue, the training in heightened mind, the training in
heightened discernment?” “Yes, lord, I can train in reference to the
three trainings: the training in heightened virtue, the training in
heightened mind, the training in heightened discernment.”
“Then train in reference to those three trainings: the training in
heightened virtue, the training in heightened mind, the training in
heightened discernment. As you train in heightened virtue, heightened
mind, & heightened discernment, your passion, aversion, &
delusion—when trained in heightened virtue, heightened mind, &
heightened discernment—will be abandoned. You—with the abandoning of
passion, the abandoning of aversion, the abandoning of delusion—will
not do anything unskillful or engage in any evil.”

For definitions of these trainings, see AN 3:90.

a fine answer, but still interested in venerable sariputra's explanation

Who ever would try to declare something beyond the six factulties would just fall into misery, because it lies far out of range.
Holding on them as real is common one's Alibi, home, stand, yes.

It’s not yogacara.  It’s missing distinctive functions like store house consciousness perfuming the seed consciousnesses, etc.  And please do not view yogacara as an ontology.  It is not making any claim that the nature of the world is “mind only” or exists only in the mind.  Only the roots keeping us bound to samsara are generated by the mind alone.  Yogacara is simply a model of how we are bound and a methodology for unbinding.

i didn't call it ontology, but thanks anyway..

actually vasubandhu did make the claim that the nature of world is mind only, ie exists only in the mind

Not really.  What he says is more along the lines of stating that we cannot know anything apart from our own consciousness.  Perception is dependent on sense consciousness and the seeds that condition them.  Even upon liberation, our perceptions are dependent on our body.  It’s not that things exist only in the mind but rather that we can only experience them through the mind.

if not through the mind, then how else? It's a limiting factor, and you can't prove it otherwise

Yeah, but that’s all it ultimately is - a limiting factor.  Yogacara isn’t an ontology.  It makes no claims regarding the ultimate nature of reality.


text:
a reason for long-lasting defilements
Some other asker had said something like ‘trapped in defilement’. I thought it was interesting b/c I feel that way a lot.  Can karma (results) have a long-lasting defiling quality? Or is this just an excuse for a weak-minded one to continue along?  For example, someone who is in hell is there for a reason, and while there, the mind is defiled and hasn't a chance to become undefiled due to the karmic energy…but after the hell period is completed, the opportunity to give effort arises.  Can it be like this?  on a side note, i believe some jain understanding talks about certain characters that can never be liberated, but that's another topic..

According to AN 6.87, there is actually a list of characteristics, and such a person will never be able to have the right mental state or moral capacity to learn the Dhamma:

"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting
on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even
when listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?
"He has killed his mother; he has killed his father; he has killed an
arahant; he has, with corrupt intent, caused the blood of a Tathagata
to flow; he has caused a split in the Sangha; or he is a person of
dull discernment, slow & dull-witted.
"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on
the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while
listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?
"He has not killed his mother; he has not killed his father; he has
not killed an arahant; he has not, with corrupt intent, caused the
blood of a Tathagata to flow; he has not caused a split in the Sangha;
and he is a discerning person, not slow or dull-witted.
AN 6.87

According to MN 86, Angulimala killed many human beings, but he could still change and become an arahant. So, probably, he did not commit the transgressions above (killing father, killing mother, killing arahant, injuring Buddha).
So in short, if one did not commit the acts mentioned above or have those characteristics, one could theoretically completely turn around and become an arahant in this very lifetime.
From Dhammapada:

Few among men are those who cross to the farther shore. The rest, the bulk of men, only run up and down the hither bank.

But those who act according to the perfectly taught Dhamma will cross the realm of Death, so difficult to cross.

87-88. Abandoning the dark way, let the wise man cultivate the bright
path. Having gone from home to homelessness, let him yearn for that
delight in detachment, so difficult to enjoy. Giving up sensual
pleasures, with no attachment, let the wise man cleanse himself of
defilements of the mind.

Those whose minds have reached full excellence in the factors of enlightenment, who, having renounced acquisitiveness, rejoice in not
clinging to things — rid of cankers, glowing with wisdom, they have
attained Nibbana in this very life.

Dhammapada

In real life I've found that how and with whom you live has long-lasting effect -- and that finally changing that gives "a chance to become undefiled", and then, "the opportunity to give effort arises".
That's analogous to what you were saying, about living in and eventually leaving hell.
So, in real life, meeting regularly with, being influenced or tutored by people who are better, saner, more together, kinder, wiser, more disciplined -- that change of environment gives you a chance to become like a different person.
I think this observation is in line with Buddhist doctrine, about finding good friends.
The kind of change I'm thinking of includes (but is not limited to only) letting go of addictions, substance abuse. I suspect the hell might need to be replaced with something else -- a different experience, influence, environment, role model.

Also I'm not sure "weak-minded" is the right diagnosis. Instead the "root poison" according to Buddhism is ignorance. So it may be fixed by someone who has better insight into the condition.
For example if a person were sick and a doctor knows how to cure that illness, I wouldn't call that "weakness" of the patient -- it was that they needed the doctor's knowledge, view, know-how, and relationship.
That's an example, I'm not saying that doctors are the only people with any insight.

Not associating with wise, association with fools, not meeting the wise, not tending toward them, not lending an ear, holding on corrupt stand, is the only outwardly reason for long lasting wandering on.


text:
Merit versus Virtue
What is the difference between merit and virtue from a Buddhist standpoint?  Is it the difference between being and doing?  Which is better from a karmic perspective?  I think the idea of merit in Buddhism is silly because it creates a sense of ownership, like a reward-system or something, whereas virtue seems more elegant and less competitive.

What is the difference between merit and virtue from a Buddhist standpoint?
You might find this essay helpful:

Merit: A Study Guide by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

If I can summarise its Introduction:

The highest form of merit [is] the realization of stream-entry, the first glimpse of the deathless

Merit (puñña) is one of the least known and least appreciated in the West. ... perhaps because the pursuit of merit seems to be a lowly practice, focused on getting and "selfing"

The section on merit then sets out in general terms the types of meritorious activities that conduce to that happiness, focusing primarily on three: giving, virtue, and meditation.

In the course of developing a wise sense of self in the pursuit of merit, one is already learning how to let go of unwise ways of "selfing" as one learns to overcome stinginess, apathy, and hard-heartedness through the development of giving, virtue, and good will.

Conversely I think that a characteristic of stream-entry is

He/she is endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones

Which is better from a karmic perspective?
That may be a trick question, i.e. because it's the "ending of kamma" that's described as Noble.

Some people have no trouble accepting the teaching on merit. Maybe they see some value in it (like you do with virtue) and therefore don't question it.
For those who do have some trouble accepting the idea of merit, here are a few thoughts:
From the etymology of the Latin word merit, we get: "To get a share in something." The something is the act that is done, the share is the reward that the doer gets. It's a karmic reward, that is, your good deed has a good shaping effect on your own mind, if you do it consciously and willingly.
If I remember correctly, the Pali word for merit (puñña) can also be translated as righteousness or goodness. So you could think of an act of merit as being similar to the practice of mettā (goodwill), but having a different form of expression: verbally or physically, rather than only in thought.
puñña: Merit; worth; the inner sense of well-being that comes from having acted rightly or well and that enables one to continue acting well.
PS. From a recent talk by Thanissaro Bhikku:

You’ve learned from your practice that generosity and virtue… that
those activities in and of themselves are happy activities. We read
all too often about the rewards that come over the long term: The
rewards of being generous, the rewards of being virtuous. But as you
practice them you begin to realize, in and of themselves, there’s a
sense of wellbeing. The Buddha himself said that acts of merit is
another word for happiness. The actual doing—in and of itself—is a happy doing.

a share of merit...this sounds like common karma theory to me

@blue_ego Yes. The third "sort" of result, of karma. If that's what you meant.

not the future, but sometime after that?

@blue_ego Time is a language convention; all three "sorts" occur now.  Sort 1 = immediate ("now");  sort 2 = not-immediate ("later", but still occurring now);  sort 3 = mind shaping ("following that" = this / that conditionality). Three sorts, not three times.

what if i agree, but then i say i no longer believe in karmic results.  are you ok with that?

‘If there is no other world, and there is no fruit and result of good and bad deeds, still right here, in this very life, I maintain myself in happiness, without enmity and ill will, free of trouble.

There is no "versus" as virtue is one of the 10 kind of merits.
It's just because Brahmans (using the Gems) teach only the Generosity section as merits, without the base (virtue), that some think it's not of use, but actually for all required, if desiring upwardly and/or beyond.
People with troubles with merits are hopeless far away from any good.
Puñña means "doing what's merits (real) joy": fruits, and so often "ku-sala" is added "bad-cutting-off work/labor/sacrifices": in the "puññakiriyavatthu" area of good deeds.
Without right joy (from giving, not from consuming), no way toward liberation or what merits toward it.

Fascinating question!
Merit is for those seeking pleasure:

AN10.91:23.1: In the same way, the pleasure seeker who seeks wealth using legitimate, non-coercive means, who makes themselves happy and pleased, and shares it and makes merit, and who uses that wealth untied, uninfatuated, unattached, seeing the drawbacks, and understanding the escape is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the ten.”

And if we can agree that the Buddha is virtuous, we see that the Buddha has gone beyond pleasure seekers:

AN4.246:1.1: “Mendicants, there are these four ways of lying down.
AN4.246:1.2: What four?
AN4.246:1.3: The ways a corpse, a pleasure seeker, a lion, and a Realized One lie down.
...
AN4.246:4.1: And how does a Realized One lie down?
AN4.246:4.2: It’s when a Realized One, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption … second absorption … third absorption … fourth absorption.

Today people at large copy-steal Dhamma and used to only conduct akusala, they think they can gain good for themselves and others, doing shares of what isn't their, thinking "no need of doing of what merits". So did it happen that no good is perceived by doing just "akusala puñña". Living along fools not used to go benefical, living among thieves, rejoicing in evil, it's not possible to even conduct low merits, as virtue is base of even benefical giving. Not related to the wise, but in union with marxist, anarchist and thieves, the vegi eating pyjama Buddhists just heed toward poorness and confussion, shine ugly from far and become prisoned slaves of the religion.


text:
Specific ways/practices to help die with equanimity, (less "self") and perhaps even awakening at death-time?
In general all Buddhist practice seems to help with the concerns mentioned in the Title.  Equanimity helps with all unwanted, changing conditions (from minor challenges to "aging, sickness and death".
Lessening (or even losing) the sense of "self" also seems powerful each day and especially on the last one.
If anyone, especially anyone currently preparing for the eventual laying down of the body has: insights, dharma, experience (thus far)...please reply.

Maybe related: Last thought before death?

At the approach of death, many people can veer close to the eighth fetter, which is the subtle sense of duality, or subject & object. Around that region, its usually about what real hold do thoughts and sensations actually have upon you, and you should be able to see the body as being the same as other objects in the room: just like a table and a chair, the body is empty of essence, not yours, no self and all those usual Buddhisty things.

Haven't faced death yet, if faced then don't remember if that was near death experience or just faintness.
But as heard from others about death, it causes extreme level of pain at physical level, all life passes in form of picture in mind, things seem to start breaking up and decisions are made according to the behaviour pattern of subconscious state.
Let's analyse these:-
The basic equanimity consists of these things :- 5 precepts, right thinking / thoughts, 8 worldly concerns, fear.
So basic equanimity should simply means to maintain a fearless right thinking or right thought process or right.. 8 folds by remaining alert against 8 worldly concerns using 5 precepts as tool and seeing end result as one of the 4 noble truth.
During extreme pain, it should be highly impossible to maintain "right thinking in form of 5 precepts" without meditation practice. Even when strong swaying away of emotions is there then mind pictures can be aligned to result into right process only when one is having a practice previously.
Not to run away, not to make wrong decisions, not to flow with defilements etc. should be the points to keep during that time. And apart from all, observer space or an observer like third perspective should be there.
So it's all upto you, what you wish to practice.. all, physical only, mental only, dhamma in form of fabrications only.
Note: for the first time today, I got introduced(or learnt) by the basic definition of equanimity while writing... Before it was all scattered as if what should I call equanimity? So untill enlightenment, as everything is just 99% correct and 1% space for rectification hence this might also not be 100% correct.
(Hindi version could be there for better understanding/feel in local language).

The body can respond to severe pain, yet there can be no self in that. Another way to put that: khandas continue to flow, but one knows that they are not the objects that make up the khandas. From where that knowing takes place, I cannot say. But the body does whatever it does, even if dying looks rather silly and dramatic.

As mentioned in books, standing on road b/w high speed cars and standing on road side seeing them.. later will make one to know what's going on and if the habit is only to stand in b/w then only practice or "awareness with action to come aside" will do. Yet it's amazing how each and every bit in body can be judged like this simultaneously by mind.

1.please learn about four brahma viharas and specially about Upekkha (equanimity as you have mentioned) and practice it constantly and continuously.

and try to deepen your VIPASSANA understanding, because that's the main way of getting the true equanimity! Suppose a practitioner even without practicing equanimity, he can become enlighten by just practicing VIPASSANA well.in that case as an arahant will automatically become equanimity.

How to practice at the moment of death:
Buddhadasa
World as Empty - Buddha's Teachings on Voideness
Remainderless Quenching of the "I": Extinguishing with nothing left
There is nothing in this or any world that is worth to have or to be - the mind should have no hope of having or being anything at all. Truly, nothing is worth having or being, at any time or in any place. The mind tends into its own dissolution. With no desire to have or be anything, the mind dissolves into suññata.
When the time has really come for the mind to cease, revive the feeling that nothing anywhere is worth having or being. If that feeling is present in the mind at the moment it ceases, it will reach nibbana inevitably. Have the body and mind cease with the feeling that nothing is worth having or being, then it will realize nibbana in that physical death itself.
When the time of death has trully come, let this feeling be present. Remember that when close to death the mind will gradually slip away. As the body runs down near its end, awareness will gradually disappear. You will forget more and more until you forget everything. But the awareness that nothing is worth having or being can stay as the mind's companion to the very end. Keep the feeling of the remainderless quenching until the very end - nothing is worth having or being. Realize suññata in the last second of life.
Suchart
If you do not want rebirth, you will have to stop your mind from dreaming, from going to a new life. That's what the Buddha did. He stopped his mind by cutting off the desire in his mind. He had no desire, and when there is no desire, the mind doesn't generate anything, doesn't generate any thoughts, and doesn’t have any force to drive it to go into a new body. So the key idea here is to let go of everything. Nothing belongs to you. If you cling to it, you will suffer. If you let go, you will be at ease and be peaceful.
Dune Atulo
When time comes to die, make the mind one, then stop focusing and let go of everything.
You can also check MN143 - Anāthapiṇḍikovāda Sutta
https://suttacentral.net/mn143/en/suddhaso

Verse 6 from the Dhammapada:

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

If there were any quarrels it might mean a lot, to have ended them.

I'm not sure of the translation. Most translate it that way -- here, here, and here -- but Ven. Sujato translates it here as, "Others don’t understand that here we need to be restrained. But those who do understand this, being clever, settle their conflicts."

This verse always stands out to me.  Our (daily, for som) contemplation of the death of this body can give us a different perspective of the value of things, beliefs, fixed views, etc. and the value of relationships.  Gil Fronsdal's version:  Many do not realize that we here must die, For those who realize this, Quarrels end.

To be able to cope with things that happens suddenly such as death, one needs to be able to cope with things that happens suddenly such as being angry, emotional, sadness, illness, embarrassment etc. If one is able to convert mundane worldly things such as being angry, emotional, sadness, illness, embarrassment etc. into positives, then through training repetition, one should be able to deal with death, or the things such as being angry, emotional, sadness, embarrassment etc. that comes with death.

Equanimity while not having penetrated, abound desire for sensuality, will bring one anywhere, and sure not in refined states. And lost any sense of self, while still consuming, if good in the realm of "mindless-beings". So good to develop proper conceit in seeing the dangers in the world (sense) and seek out for people teaching the Dhamma not training consuming fools and suggestions that they could escape the debts. Only debtless one is able to progress, having abond desire for foremost gross food.

Losing control of bodily functions (or at least the perception that we had control of them) and losing "life force"/energy imho can only be processed equanimously if we realize no-self (or a lot "less-self").  If we practice well we may be able to "just observe" the sensations (including thoughts) at death time (and not cling to life and multiply suffering).  ...perhaps even willingly let go of life.  It does not have to be a "bad" experience for a Buddhist practitioner.


text:
Source of Ajahn Chah quote
I'd like to read the context for the following quote from Ajahn Chah:

I want those who train with me to see the truth, not just read the
scriptures. I want them to see if their hearts have been completely
liberated from conceptual thinking.

It's from a calendar (October 2016) put out by forestsangha.org.
Also, an explanation of the meaning of the statement would be very welcome.

It seems to come from "Unshakeable Peace" by Ven. Ajahn Chah, though not verbatim. You can read the full dhamma talk on that link.

When I train my disciples, I train them to practice like this. Because
I want them to see the truth, rather than just read what's in the
scriptures; I want them to see if their hearts have been liberated
from conceptual thinking.

Thanks so much.
A footnote says: "This same Dhamma talk by Ajahn Chah was formerly printed as a different translation under the title The Key to Liberation."
That translation says: Whenever I teach the monastic community, I teach that way – because I want you to see the truth. I don’t want you just to see what’s in the books. I want you to see for yourselves, in your own minds, whether you have been liberated from your defiled thoughts or not.


text:
What's the effect of living on alms (social services) and not doing duties, being unrestrained?
Would it be similar like the destiny for monks?
It's said that one living on alms, not doing his duties (foremost sense-restrain) but enjoys sensual pleasures increases his debts: e.g. poorness, strong dependend, low states.
And those without metta and virtue, fall under the category of thieves.
Do those solcial-consumer, relaying even on alms not even given for the liberating practice, not maybe even steal or misuse from both communities and thereby head toward much pain, generate toward real outcasts everywhere?

What does this mean? The question is not clear.

@ruben2020 My guess was that the question refers to someone who is interested in Buddhism, perhaps who posts online, who don't hold down a job for some reason (and subsists on social securoity instead), and yet who don't go forth. But it asks about their destiny so it might be hard to answer authoritatively. It may also beg the question of what their "duty" is if they do receive social security and have not joined the sangha.

You cannot equate alms with social services, they have nothing in common. Is this a question about how karma works?

It's very common that "state-children", living on social care by state or charity, lazy to work and contribute, seek "refuge" in "I am a Buddhist", worthy of gifts, and on that, relay on both communities, yet neither do their duties here nor there, being not only material but also "spiritual" consumer. Commonly they of course don't care about family either.
Nothing else as states of hungry ghost, orphan animal, or hell can be expected, after breaking off of this body. If gaining human existance, such are born as poor orphans, slaves, group-confused, lack of any social state, refugees, anonymous, haunted consumer without relation, heirs: fearful real outcasts, beggars among monastery lanes.
Take care and know your duties and dependency well, instead of hoping "I have a right" will pay off the debt!


text:
Swaying, floating sensation after vipassana retreat
I just completed my first 10 vipassana retreat. I'm wondering if anyone has had this experience and how long it took for it to subside- I've seen the question posted by other users experienckng it, but no follow ups.
Around day 5 of the retreat i started to experience a floating, swaying sensation after the meditations, during the evening discourse i couldn't look at the tv as it felt like it was moving. By day 9 i had some intense experiences during the meditations, like I was no longer in my body but merely a witnessing the body and everything around me seemed fragmented, and i was also having a hard time narrowing my focus on my body, like my awareness of my body expanded way beyond my body and i couldn't actually feel sensations in 'my' body. Also i would feel an energetic force move through me, sometimes moving my body (head would raise, arms would move) it wasn't intentional, and felt natural, and resisting it (to maintain determination) felt like it was creating stress or tension.
I'm home now and this energetic force feeling continues to pulasate in my body and gives me a swaying /rocking feeling, it makes me dizzy nauseas, unable to fcous. I try to remain objective and merely observe. But it has made day to day life impossible, i can't drive or walk, and I'm not sure if I should continue to meditate, or take a break, or not go as deep into meditation. When we started vipassana in the retreat I was very able to narrow my focus precisely and feel every subtle sensation, now it feels like if I try i don't feel much, eveeything seems very light and airy. Trying to give as much info as possible. But also very dizzy writing this and having difficulty.

https://www.cheetahhouse.org/ is one place you can get help from. They specialize in meditation injuries.

You've stuck your head through into the higher fetters without the possibility to acclimatize. It happened to me due to having exceptional concentration. My insight was way ahead of my body's ability to catch up, so many times I had to pull back and acclimatize in order to settle the discontinuity. This meant stopping practices and firmly rooting myself in the six-sense experience. Your ability to observe the practice should be respected, as if you've just found a wild stallion. Go easy.

Can you elaborate what you mean by fetters and sixth sense practices. Thank you for your response

What kind of Vipasana retreat was it?

The Goenka one. The sensation lasted a few months, i had to stop all practices and rest and eventually it subsided.

edit Didn't focus on the initial part of question, let's go step by step:-

That floating and swaying sensation arises due to mind accumulated in air within body. Air usually travels within body and if entire focus is made via that medium, these type of observations might appear.
TV felt like moving, same reason as above.
Felt like outside body, observation stopped inside.. this is mainly due to focus in space surrounding body, whose counter technique been discussed below. With me, it also accompanied with some colour in mind image like that of clear sky.
Arms & head movement:- yeah, with me I actually enjoyed this part the most, was amazed and wondering as how it's automatically coming back to meditation posture like a robot. Don't worry, this is just the subconscious state trying to wake.
About that rocking, swaying etc... It's a mixup of observation within blood movement, air etc. So it's normal too. Make sure to stop that music playing in mind cause the feelings associated with them or such circumstances in life that alter mood, usually raise a kind of happiness and sadness enhancing rocking, swaying etc.
Tricky part is don't let mind or yourself as of now, to blame others. Laugh on these, would be very easy to deal like this.
At this state, it should be easy to divide mind into parts such that actual observer will be different and you can easily say that, "it was observed".

Hopefully, you have not been in touch (verbally too) with someone practicing at these states, and you didn't sit on any such meditator's seat. If so, ask them to give you maitri-bhaavna to make you  come out of it and lower your "uneasiness" from this and practice this maitri-bhaavna via yourself too.

Previous discussion on counter technique for "infinite space state"
Incase if you don't stop practice or just wanna use meditatiom as remedy then below might be helpful.
Probably it's because of focus in sky or space or void around body with perception of subconscious state as "this sky is infinite". (In my local language sky, space void usually are same).
Refer to sallekh sutta of majjhima nikaya, this is known as akashanantyayatan.
From previous experience, this might be pulled back using anapana (start from 0 always, whenever stuck). Try to pull focus within cave of nostrils. If we draw a line around head in center of forehead and remove the forehead part then that particular line and area around that should be the area of observation which would feel relax when focus is pulled back to nostril cave.
This is cave because such was the feeling when did this, as if "I am standing inside the cave (nearby forehead) and air is coming towards me and passing back like something cozy side by me".
Also, better to take a day or 2 break, give mind something where it cannot stuck itself like do too much physical hard work, could be working with daily wage workers or in open gym (outside building) without music etc.

Do you know how long the rocking swaying might last. It's been several days and it is still very intense. I've ceased meditating. I tried anapana, but the focus makes everything worse.

This rocking swaying feeling was there even before me in contact with Vipassana. Not just inside body rather during sleep with half wake state, my bed used to rock sway together with me. So far as per analysis, it's due to mood swings, as stated before do intense physical hard work, if music or such circumstances occur then try to get rid of them using right thought process, right concentration.

Last thing I remember was, inside mind -> divided body in 2 parts head( part above neck) and rest. Maintained focus within entire head and tried to expand over entire bed. Then started judging if this feeling is correct, if this is me, .. and it decreased by 99%.

Stopping your practice temporarily would be a good first step.  I would also suggest eating something grounding like meat.  Maybe even have a beer or two.  What you’re experiencing isn’t terribly uncommon - especially the rocking part.  My guess is that during your retreat, you were probably overdoing it with the force of your concentration.  This, coupled with a lack of good sleep can cause things like this to happen.  You don’t want to have your foot so firmly on the accelerator.
Overtime, you’ll get used to the sensation of a calm and clarified mind.  When you get a strong dose of it immediately, it can be disconcerting - like someone who has never been high before accidentally eating a plateful of special brownies.
You’ll be fine.

Yes, overdoing it. It's very common for these types of intensive practices. From a fetter perspective, they've temporarily broken through into 6th & 7th fetters (borders, space & time blend out here) That can happen, even to newcomers. Formless practices are readily available, especially in the right setting like a vipassana retreat. One then comes bouncing back, but now there's questions and a newfound curiosity about it all! Lol

I think just generally, it’s more a matter of readapting; this happens pretty consistently when coming back from a retreat.  I’m always a little spacey the first day or two back from sesshin.  My mind is like - you want me to do what now after sitting for seven days??  Eventually you find your equilibrium, usually at the expense of some of the calm you painstakingly cultivated during retreat ebbs away.  Such is the reality of lay practice!  ♂. Beer definitely speeds up the process tho!

Thanks that's so reassuring i kept feeling like i may need to eat meet or have a drink, to ground. I've taken a break from practices. Thanks

Give it a couple of days.  If you start making a habit of retreats, it’ll still happen, but it just won’t be as disorienting.  Driving is always sketchy though.  If at all possible, get a ride, use public transit, or wait until you’re better at managing the symptoms before driving yourself.

Driving has been brutal. I wish the retreat center had warned us of the possibility, it's 3 hours from civilization lol. I felt super unsafe. I've seen posts of people experiencing this for 10 days post-retreat. Thanks again

It's amazing how this answer was voted down, perhaps because of the reference to meat and bear? I remember going through the initial phase of the anagami's restlessness. Sometimes that restlessness was so strong, I'd go and sit in the pub and drink larger to ease things.

♂ Well I mean the question was how to we counteract the effects of a Buddhist retreat.  It seems like breaking the precepts would be a pretty expedient way to do that.  I’m not a fan of drinking, truth be told, but if your head is floating 10  feet above your shoulders and it’s causing you acute misery?  For a beginner, I don’t take issue with that.  (And for frick’s sake, the Buddha ate meat.)

I haven't given into beer or meat yet, but had some eggs. The feeling is worse today, my whole body is swaying and it's nauseating. If you guys have any insight, that'd be great. A lot of my googling refers to energy/kundalini. The movement in my body feels very energetic/magnetic. It's a lil terrifying, i know I should maintain equanimity but i can barely stand, let alone cook, drive function in my daily life

Are you sure you’re not actually sick?  I mean, presumably you were around a bunch of people in close quarters for a week and a half.  After a couple of days of this, I’d be less likely to attribute your symptoms to something meditation related.  Things like that tend to clear up within two or three days.  Just based on what you’re saying, it could be something simple like an inner ear infection.  Your call, but if this keeps up, I’d personally go see a doctor.