text:
5 precepts and the mental factor of sila
Once the 5 precepts is observed from a monk, is there any rupa of sila being formed as a kind of mental factor in the observer? And this rupa of sila (like a vase?) if thus polluted,it can be cleansed, but once broken, it can not be amended. Is this saying correct?

Confession is the way to get right of this "rupa", to lift one out of a transgression, householder. Amend does not make deeds undone, will not delete effects, but one is able to walk on and progress. That works for everybody. Monks have special proceedings depending on how heavy the fault, also as a community "law" tool, good householder.

It's right, that for a monk, if one of the four basic Silas is gravely broken, that there is no more way to reinstall him in his status as monk.

The undertaking of the five precepts normally refers to the lay people. While monks also practice them, their discipline is far more numerous and it is called Patimokkha. The five precepts should not be seen the same way as "The Ten Commandments" as they serve as practice  guidelines instead of an absolute rule handed down by a supernatural being. If a lay person were to conduct an action against the precepts, there is no penalty or punishment although the action is unwholesome and unskillful. However, it is possible that such an action will result in unpleasant karmic retribution in the future. On the other hand, if a monk were to break one of the rules in the Patimokkha, the offense depends on the seriousness of the unskillful actions.

Monks actually also have "just" four Silas, they are just made more precise.

Monks Vinaya rules are over 200. Are you saying that these rules are based on the five precepts?

I agree, the 200 different rules seem to have the five precepts as the basis; they are made much more specific by the Buddha.

And this rupa of sila (like a vase?) if thus polluted,it can be cleansed, but once broken, it can not be amended. Is this saying correct?
There are a few actions which would be called a monk's "defeat" --

If a bhikkhu commits a paaraajika offence he is 'defeated' and no longer a bhikkhu even if he is wearing robes. The Community of bhikkhus will have nothing to do with him and will expel him.
The Bhikkhus' Rules --
A Guide for Laypeople

A less-serious offence has lesser consequences -- i.e. it might be cleansed or amended.


text:
What does Buddhadasa say about rebirth after the break-up of the body?
i came across the teachings of Buddhadasa, he seemed to preach that rebirth is just a state of mind cycled throughout the days; greed, lust, peace, etc.  That makes sense. But did he talk about what happen after break up of body or conventional death?  Am i missing something?  so if that is true, then eventually everyone will reach Nirvana at the end if we wait long enough (because according to him, there cant be cycles of state of mind if there is no rebirth)? Did he present new idea of   of rebirth or I still have a lot more to read from Buddhadasa?  I can't seem to find his ideas of literal rebirth.   Thanks.

Have you read his essay? It's "Anatta and Rebirth" by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. It's in PDF.

@truth seeker, you might want to check again because nowhere did he said that momentary rebirth is the sole exclusive mode of rebirth. In other words, momentary rebirth is an just an aid to better one's vipassana. I've never come across any claim of his that rejects the traditional interpretation of physical rebirth. But if you find any, feel free to share and then we can discuss.

Buddhadasa taught "literal rebirth" is something mental, in the here-&-now. Since the Pali word "jati" ("birth") literally refers to something mental, why would the superstitious speculative idea occur that an imaginary "physical rebirth" is "literal"?
The word 'birth' ('jati') refers to the production of 'beings' (per SN 12.2). Suttas such as SN 23.2, SN 5.10 & MN 98 say 'beings' ('satta') are merely 'views' & 'verbal designations' born of 'strong clinging'. Therefore, 'jati' or 'birth' is something 'mental', in both original Buddhism and in modern Hindu India.
As for he answers to your questions, they can be found in the book by Buddhadasa called Two Kinds of Language.

Now, going a little higher, we come to the word "birth" (jati). In
  everyday language, the word "birth" refers to physically coming into
  the world from the mother's womb. A person is the born physically only
  once. Having been born, one lives in the world until one dies and
  enters the coffin. Physical birth  happens to each of us only
  once. This birth from the mother's womb is what is meant by "birth"
  in everyday language.

Now let's consider the word "death". Death in everyday language means
  that event which necessitates putting something in a coffin and
  cremating or burying it. But in Dhamma language, the word "death"
  refers to the [traumatic; sorrowful; suffering] cessation of the idea mentioned just a moment ago, the
  idea of "I" or "me". The [traumatic; sorrowful; suffering] ceasing of this idea is what is meant by
  "death'' in Dhamma language.

About the later-day corruption of 'jati' into something 'physical', Buddhadasa said:

People language is used by the ordinary people who don't
  understand Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so
  dense that they are blind to everything but material things.

Such worldly people are so dense & blind they label as 'materialists' those who don't subscribe to superstitions of 'physical rebirth', which is illogical & contradictory, given it is they, who believe in 'material physical rebirth', who are obviously 'materialists'.
In summary:

'Literal rebirth' is something 'mental'.
Believers in 'physical rebirth' are logically 'materialists'.
Buddhadasa appeared to say there is only one life.

As for the term 'kaya', found in the translated sutta phrase: 'break-up of the body', it does not necessarily mean 'physical body'. 'Kaya' literally means 'group' or 'collection'. MN 44, for example, says the 'sak-kaya' is the five aggregates. Since the quality of the five aggregates are changing from moment to moment, particularly in the common worldly 'person', obviously the phrase 'break-up of the kaya' may not refer to the termination of life.
For example, as soon as I log off Buddhism Stack Exchange, obviously the aggregates answering this question (such as the sankhara aggregate thinking with the thought content of this question; and the visual consciousness of the sense object Buddhism Stack Exchange) will end.

Reading Anattā and Rebirth by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, it ends with,

We can conclude by saying that if you understand anattā correctly and truly, then you will discover
  for yourself that there is no rebirth and no reincarnation. The matter is finished.

Previous fragments of the talk included:

If right here, right now, there is no
  soul, person, self, or attā, how could there be some "who" or "someone" that goes and gets reborn? So
  there is no way one can ask "who will be reborn?"Therefore, the rebirth of the same person does not
  occur. But the birth of different things is happening all the time. It happens often and continuously, but
  there is no rebirth. There is no such thing, in reality, as rebirth or reincarnation. That there is one person,
  one "I" or "you," getting reborn is what reincarnation is all about. If all is anattā, there is nothing to get
  reborn. There is birth, birth, birth, of course. This is obvious. There is birth happening all the time, but it
  is never the same person being born a second time. Every birth is new. So there is birth, endlessly,
  constantly, but we will not call it "rebirth" or "reincarnation."

And:

One group of people believes that there is self, there is atman, there is a soul which is born as this
  person. Once the body dies, this thing doesn't die. It goes to a new birth. Most people believe this, they
  take it as the basis of their beliefs. The Upanishad texts believed this. In Buddhism, however, there isn't
  such a thing. Buddhism does not believe there is a self or soul which is born and then dies. Thus, the
  rebirth of this or that person doesn't occur, because that person doesn't exist here in the first place. This is
  called "physical rebirth." It is something that should not be spoken of as "rebirth."

That seems to me similar to what Ven. Yuttadhammo posted on this site, about birth and rebirth, starting with:

The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old.

Perhaps there are two other question that are more interesting:

What is anatta?
What about karma and sila?

... and, from Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's talk:

Whether or not there is rebirth is not the fundamental question,
  because once one is born here and now, there is dukkha like this and it must be quenched like this. Even if
  you are born again, dukkha is like this and must be quenched in the same way.

I'm not sure, I doubt whether, everyone accepts this kind of answer -- perhaps it's good, perhaps it's one-sided, anyway it is what Buddhadasa Bhikkhu seems to have been teaching which is what you were asking about.
But for example here is an answer from someone who interprets many suttas as referring to rebirth; and the essay The Truth of Rebirth -- And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice which includes statements like,

The phrase "next world" in this passage refers to life after death.

... and ...

One reason the Buddha recommended conviction in rebirth as a useful working hypothesis is that, as we have noted, he had to teach that skillful human action was powerful and reliable enough to put an end to suffering; and his teaching on the consequences of skillful and unskillful action would be incomplete — and therefore indefensible — without reference to rebirth.

... and describes the topic as "An Ancient Controversy".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to let go of the will to let go or reach a certain state?
I find that the biggest block in my practice is the will to reach a good state. There's constantly an expectation from the experience to be good. I found that only by letting this go you can truly reach a good state, but its very hard to let this go. Countless sittings are wasted on this.
How can I learn to let go of this need?

Great question, one that I struggled with for years as well. The fact that you recognize this issue means that you are already well on your way, sadhu.
What eventually worked for me is this:
Simply be present with what's actually happening, and be mindful of any thought that arises, any feeling, any subtle pushing, any subtle leaning in, any expectation, etc.
Once mindfulness touches these things, they lose their power and dissipate with your wise attention. See them, and upon seeing know they are not worth clinging to, they are impermanent, unsatisfying, and not you. They will fade on their own. Watching these objects rise and fall, you'll realize deeply that clinging to past or future experience is suffering. It's just another object to let go of.
In your next sitting, see if you can note the arising expectations. See with the lense of the Three Characteristics, and then letting go happens naturally.
Accept today's meditation as it is, there are no failed meditations. Surrender with Equanimity to all objects.
Another trick is overcome your attachment to piti. Once you are feeling good in meditation, reset, unplugging the rapture. Reinforce that getting lost in "good experiences" is just like being absorbed in a wandering mind. Return to your primary meditation object.
Do not stop within. Sharpen your mindfulness. Once reasonably still, increase your mindfulness power and see reality at a finer grain. With wise attention even expectations can be let go of.
Sadhu & Good Luck.
-with Metta

Thanks for the advice. Yes, getting lost in rapture is also suffering. I felt that I just couldn't sustain it because its so intense. It sort of hurts because its so strong. Is it your experience also?

I know exactly what you mean. Sometimes the intensity of the rapture feels unbearable. Some theorize that this happens when you're purifying a lot at once, as though the recycle bin of your mind was really full and emptying a full one feels intense. It will subside with continued mindfulness. Continue to watch it without judgement and soon it will give way to Equanimity and great peace and contentment. The meditation will become refined, deep, and subtle. So see the rapture has a good sign post, and let it go and on to the next stage! ;)

Great question ,this is actually a fallacy that ,I myself experienced after reaching long periods of bliss during meditation .What you are experiencing is called rapture,you  started off well in meditation without expectation then when the blissful feeling came, instead of meditating on it, you became enchanted by it and thus wanted to have it back but you cant have it because you started desiring it,falling back in the loop of desire> attachment> suffering.
What I had realized on the experiential level,is that there is no where to go in meditation ,I am already there ,all what I need to experience ,I am already experiencing.I realized that each experience whatever it is can be an object of meditation , a door way to end suffering.....Now If I cannot reach a certain state then the reality is ,,that I cannot reach it :).. knowing that right know and meditating on this reality by itself solves the problem.The quality of not reaching you cannot accept, you have an attitude towards it.When you accept not reaching the state you will transcend this thought.Then the state will come out of no where,its a state of connection with existence.
See the issue meditation is trying to solve is not to keep you in a spiritual high,but to make you less possessed by things as well as not making you disinterested in life.Thus if you totally accept life as it is ,with its bad states as well as its good then you have understood the way.
I recommend Vipassana meditation.Don't try in it to reach any state ,whatever you experience is your reality.No need to go anywhere or force any action.

What does one expect by meditation?
Householder, only when Drawbacks (adinava) are seen, one turns to Renunciation (nekkhamma).
Meanwhile simply right effort.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."

One seeing that there is no refuge in a home, one is able to go forth, outwardly also to develop what right effort is target about, as soon as seeing the limits.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)

To cultivate the will to do something (anything, no matter how trivial), you must understand why that thing you want to do is important or urgent to do. In other words, you must understand how you view the world (i.e. you must understand "your" ideas, expectations, and beliefs about the world, its parts, the relation between its parts and your role in such framework) in order to comprehend what your values are. Your values are born from your world-view, and indicate the things/facts/entities/events/ideas that you consider worthwhile.
Once you undestand deeply this theory of how emotions work, then you can start to see how "our" will operates: we do things when we are convinced that effort is worth being invested in the things done.
Now, the next step is to "convince" your emotions and values about the importance of letting go. To do so, you have to integrate new information about the Dhamma, and why letting go is such and important part of the path. This information can be reached by your own constant reflection and thoughts; by studying the suttas; or by listening or reading from other students/disciples of the Buddhadhamma.
To being able to let go, first you have to learn, at least theoretically, that feelings, perceptions, and thoughts are not "yours", neither "you". They are, instead, just habitual mental patterns, born from ignorance (i.e., from ignoring the Dhamma). Once you stop identifying with feelings, perception and thoughts, you will be able to start seeing them just by what they are: inertial habits of thought. Then, letting go becomes the natural progression, almost a by-product of all previous reflection and learning.
This "by-product" is the result of various factors interacting with each other. How to cultivate such factors? The Noble Eightfold Path help us to train each one of them. The key idea to keep in mind is that the training is gradual and progressive. The release of the mind takes its time, and goes according to the effort put into the practice of the whole Eightfold Path. As your emotions get reasons and evidence of the truth behind the Buddhadhamma, then your deeds will gradually go towards where this new emotional evidence/inormation leads you: liberation.
In sum, to exert effort is to have the will to take some course of action. But to have that will, you must have conviction of the relevance of such course of action in which you'll put your effort. That conviction grows from progressive understanding of the Dhamma.
Because of all the above, it is said that Right View is the forerunnner of the practice. See in this link for more details.
Have a wonderful day.
Kind regards!

So focus on the three characteristics instead of trying to let go and then letting go will happen automatically. I'll try that.

How can you bring effort to the practice without will?

I updated again!

I think the will your'e talking about is the will to let go of attachments. At the end of the path though you must drop this also.

To interrupt... "So focus on the three characteristics instead..." householder @MatanTsuberi: NO First Things First -> Samvega, 1. Noble Truth, Right View.

you are lucky that the buddha had the same problem. His solution is nekhammasukha https://suttacentral.net/an2.64-76/en/sujato and this is not normal for puthujjanas. In fact it is this lack of nekhammasukha which prevents people who hate nekkhammasukha to actually progress on the path.
His solution is this

[1] “Then the thought occurred to me: ‘If, having seen the drawback of
  sensual pleasures, I were to pursue that theme; and if, having
  understood the reward of renunciation, I were to familiarize myself
  with it, there’s the possibility that my heart would leap up at
  renunciation, grow confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace.’

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_41.html
this stuff about seeing the drawbacks of something works well for non-puthujjanas, because  what they lack is mostly energy and they have at worst a tiny bit of wisdom,  perhaps even puthujjanas who have faith in the claims of the buddha, but for others, they have to ponder over those

"I myself, before my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened
  bodhisatta, saw as it actually was with right discernment that
  sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, but
  as long as I had not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from
  sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more
  peaceful than that, I did not claim that I could not be tempted by
  sensuality. But when I saw as it actually was with right discernment
  that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks,
  and I had attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart
  from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than
  that, that was when I claimed that I could not be tempted by
  sensuality. "And what is the drawback of sensuality? There is the case
  where, on account of the occupation by which a clansman makes a living
  — whether checking or accounting or calculating or plowing or trading
  or cattle tending or archery or as a king's man, or whatever the
  occupation may be — he faces cold, he faces heat, being harassed by
  mosquitoes & flies, wind & sun & creeping things, dying from hunger &
  thirst.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.014.than.html
lots of contemplation here too https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.060.than.html

"The better of these two kinds of happiness is happiness free of rapture." - This is interesting. I noticed that when I fully let go, there does seem to be a sort of rapture that is so immense that it prevents me from seeing things clearly and being mindful. I guess there's attachment for this too. Letting this go as well may let in a much more balanced joy.

Countless sittings are wasted on this. Ouch!
Although it's nice to have a clean windshield, the best time to clean a windshield is when it's dirty. Practice is kind of like that. We look for the things that cause suffering and renounce them. Here's MN8:

It’s possible that a certain mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, might enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.
  They might think
  they’re practicing self-effacement.
  But in the training of the noble one these are not called ‘self-effacement’;

For example, if you are restlessly and impatiently striving for a "good meditation", that itself is something to look into. And what you might find is a delight in good meditation.

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


text:
Is there a source for the story about the sun being covered by the cloud?
A common analogy about mindfulness I hear about is that the wisdom is like the sun. It is always shining there, but is frequently clouded. Your job is to avoid as much cloud as possible, and when there is no cloud left, you are enlightened.
Where is this analogy first use? Is there a sutta for this? If not, and if you have heard about this too, can you name the source that you first knew it?

In relation with the moon: set free from a cloud {heedfulness, skillfulness} Dhp 172, Dhp 382, Iti 74. Sun is seldom used and wisdom is nothing that is inherent but used the cast off the defilement. Wisdom is a tool, not the aim for liberation.

To look for similes here.

it is not exactly what you want, but first there is this

"Just as, monks, from time to time a strong wind scatters and causes
  to vanish a great mass of clouds that has arisen, even so a monk who
  cultivates and makes much of the seven limbs of wisdom from time to
  time scatters and causes to vanish the ill, unprofitable states that
  rise and rise again.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.46.099-110.wood.pts.htm#p107
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.46.099-110.wood.pts.htm#p106
what you seek is found in Theragatha

Who once was heedless,[1] but later is not,    brightens the world
  like the moon set free from a cloud.
His evil-done deed[2] is replaced with skillfulness:    he brightens
  the world    like the moon set free from a cloud.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/kd/thag/thag.255.than.ati.htm
and in MN http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/mn/mn.112.olds.bd.htm

Then, by letting go these five bindups, afflictions of the heart,
  crippling to wisdom, separating myself from sense pleasures,
  separating myself from unskillful things, with rethinking, with
  reminiscing,[13] there came the pleasurable Enthusiasm born of
  solitude inhabiting the first burning.
Then, rethinking and reminiscing calmed, inwardly impassive, become
  unified in heart, without rethinking, without reminiscing, there came
  the pleasurable Enthusiasm born of serinity inhabiting the second
  burning.
Then, Enthusiasm fading, living detached, recollected and self-aware,
  there came the experiencing of the bodily pleasure inhabiting the
  third burning of which the Aristocrats delcare:
'Detached, recollected, he lives happily.'
Then, letting go of pleasure, letting go of pain, their precursers in
  mental ease and discomfort having found their own way home, without
  pain or pleasure, there came the utter purity of the detached mind
  inhabiting the fourth burning.
Then, thus with calm heart, pure, clean, debtless, without
  afflictions, become soft, capable, steadfast, unshakable, the heart
  bent down to knowledge of the eradication of the corruptions.
Then the knowledge: 'This is pain' emerged as though a splendid light
  from a dark cloud, the knowledge: 'This is the source of pain' emerged
  as though a splendid light from a dark cloud, the knowledge: 'This is
  the end to pain' emerged as though a splendid light from a dark cloud,
  the knowledge: 'This is the way to walk to the end of pain' emerged as
  though a splended light from a dark cloud.
Then the knowledge: 'This is corruption' emerged as though a splended
  light from a dark cloud, the knowledge: 'This is the source of
  corruption' emerged as though a splended light from a dark cloud, the
  knowledge: 'This is the end to corruption' emerged as though a
  splended light from a dark cloud, the knowledge: 'This is the way to
  walk to the end of corruption' emerged as though a splended light from
  a dark cloud.
When I knew thus, saw thus, I was freed in heart from the corruption
  of sense pleasures, freed in heart from the corruption of living,
  freed in heart from the corruption of blindness.
In freedom I thought: "I am free' and had the knowledge:
'Birth: left behind, carrying on as Brahma: finished, duty's doing:
  done, no further it'n-n-at'n is to be known for me'.
Even so, my friends, thus knowing, seeing, with regard to this body
  with consciousness and all external signs, I say that 'Bias towards
  me- my-making is uprooted.'

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/10_tens/an10.015.wood.pts.htm
You also have the variant with the rain cloud
http://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/wp/sn/05_mv/sn05.45.149-160.bodh.wp.htm

Householder Ooker,
The sun is only something that western people seek for. On the most populated places on earth sun means heat and burning the skin. Out of that reason one would not easy find sun as something desirable in the teachings, since it's all about getting good and ending the burning.
There are already certain samples in householder user12901's answer and maybe some more in relation with the moon: set free from a cloud {heedfulness, skillfulness} Dhp 172, Dhp 382, Iti 74. Sun is seldom used and wisdom is nothing that is inherent but used the cast off the defilement. Wisdom is a tool, not the aim for liberation. Searching for similes works fine here, in Upasaka John Bullitt's generous collection.
Clouds are usually used for defilements of mind or hindrances.
It's worthy to note that Wisdom is actually "just a tool" and not the aim of the holy life, the path, but simply liberation incl. panna-vimutti, wisdom-liberation.
Sun and cloud similes are very western and so found everywhere incl. teaser for "Buddhism", but again, nothing that people would desire, a cloud-less day, in not northern or far southern lands but shadow.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)


text:
Abhidhamma Pitaka and its relationship with theoretical physics
Is it necessary to study quantum field theory to understand the Abhidhamma Pitaka

Can you elaborate on why you think the Abhidhamma has any relationship with physics? And why quantum field theory in particular?

I expect one answer is "no" -- do you imagine that everyone who has ever studied the Abhidhamma also studied quantum field theory? QFD was developed in about 1950 and by Physicists, the Abhidhamma is Buddhist and from more than 2000 years ago.

no....................

Buddha's exposition towards laws of nature was totally driven by laws of physics as he envisioned it. Abhidhamma  pertains to evolution of consciousness through elaborate hierarchy of elements. These elements are bundles of energies in different manifestations. Buddha anticipated quantum mechanics in his dealings with the microcosm. So the edifice in the ABHIDHAMMA must have parallels with quantum field theory.

I would say not but, rather, that it would be necessary to study Buddhist philosophy to understand quantum mechanics. Some of the quantum pioneers seemed to have seen this, but then the Behaviourists took over.

Abhidhamma mainly deals with citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbāna.
Rupa deal with physical properties but concentrates mainly or the making of the physical body.
Citta and cetasika deals with mental and psychological factors.
Nibbana is a state one can experience which is not governed by the laws citta, cetasika, rupa, which results in liberation when one realise it.
The physics in Rupa is different from the current knowledge in physics so this baggage might be an impediment to learn Abhidhamma if you try to draw too much parallel.
Also, Abhidhammarmic studies are generally motivated to realise Nibbana so the teachings are geared toward this goal and a general understanding of how things work for mundane affairs.

Abhidhamma's work is not merely qualitative. It's quantitative too. How did the Buddha arrive at the number of  the skandas, etc. All researchers in quantum mechanics agree that the Buddha thought at the deepest level about this qualitative and quantitative aspects of energy even at the atomic level. This is at the level of physicists working with the physical constants to study phenomena at the atomic as well as at the subatomic domain. Searching the combination BUDDHA AND QUANTUM THEORY in Google will return thousands of outputs.

Abhidhamma is the evolution of consciousness. It depends upon intricate hierarchy of various cittas and skandas. Buddha gave quantitative analysis of these consciousness. He was deeply thorough with the workings of the energies at the subatomic as well as at the universal level.  The number of cittas is dependent upon careful examination of the physico- chemical interplay of energy which goes into formation of consciousness.  If we feed BUDDHA AND QUANTUM THEORY we get thousands of results, which only mean Buddha's Abhidhamma is quantum field theory anticipated.

Interrelations are coved in the Pattana in the Abhidhamma. There are 24 such relations.

These 24 relations is the intense study of classification of various forms of energy that go together to give rise to consciousness which is what the Abhidhamma all about.  To study it in modern light makes theoretical physics a helpful tool which is what most scholars on the Abhidhamma agree upon.

These 24 relations is the intense study of classification of various forms of energy that go together to give rise to consciousness which is what the Abhidhamma all about. To study it in modern light makes theoretical physics a helpful tool which is what most scholars on the Abhidhamma agree upon.
FYI I don't think that physics is a useful tool, nor that "studying the Abhidhamma in a modern light" will "make theoretical physics a helpful tool".
Based on personal experience I think it's easy to think, "I've studied physics, and  physics is an accurate description of the world."
You might then think something like, "Therefore every accurate description of the world is related to physics."
I believe that physics is an inadequate description -- it won't tell you about morality for example.
The fact that https://www.google.com/search?q="BUDDHA"+"QUANTUM+THEORY" returns many results isn't evidence, IMO -- there are innumerable misleading or ill-informed things published on the internet (often though not always a result of delusion rather than malice) -- not only about Buddhism and Physics but everything, politics, diet, health, news, too many to mention.
Buddha and the Quantum is one of the results returned on the first page, it's a polite review of a book of the same name -- the book review is by a Buddhist monk who is familiar with translating Buddhist scripture.

This approach is one I have a nostalgic fondness for. In the 80s, I read most of the early generation of works exploring similar themes, most famous of which was Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics. A whole generation of thinkers, it seemed at the time, was forging a deep-level bridge between philosophies east and west, and between religion and science.

That was a famous book ("famous" meaning I heard of it and read because I studied Physics and was open to finding out more about the world, perhaps as it might be described by Buddhism). Another was titled The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Anyway, note what he says: "a whole generation of thinkers".
Anyway the book review stays admirably polite and as "positive" as it can be, and ends with,

If you’re after a book on Buddhism, this is not for you. If you’re after a book on quantum theory, this is not for you. But if you want to explore the ways that the ideas underlying modern science can be applied to bend and twist the mind into new shapes, Buddha and the Quantum offers a challenging set of models and analogies. I really hope that there is a fundamental connection between Buddhism and science, and I hope that a work like this can help bring out this connection a little more. However, until both the science and the Buddhism become a lot more rigorous, such connections remain no more than intriguing possibilities.

If you want to study Buddhism I suggest you do that, without a preconceived idea that it might relate to your study of physics and mathematics -- Buddhist doctrine is using new words (i.e. not necessarily related to the words you use to describe Physics) to talk different phenomena.
I categorise this kind of thinking as Quantum mysticism or Quantum woo.
I think it's confused at best -- I recommend you study what Not even wrong means.

Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!

Worse, it might be conceited, even malicious:

"I'm cleverer than you because I can argue this way, so I'm right"
"Everyone respects Einstein in the modern world, but the Buddha knew all that and more, was ahead of his time (and anyone who doesn't believe what I say about Buddhism is arguing against Einstein etc.)"

Sorry if this sounds hostile. I did study quantum field theory (as a student around 1980), and I didn't find it useful -- good luck to you if you do. If you're going to study Buddhist scripture I think it's better to try to figure out what they were saying and how and perhaps even why they were saying it, and not assume it's the same "view" as, nor the same topic as, physics.

Everything that you said is agreeable. But then there is something that haunts me. I'm a student of quantum field theory and relativity. My conviction is: If the Enlightened One was aware of all the workings of the Universe down to the subatomic domain, why would it be out of place to not relate his careful analysis of mind, matter and consciousness to the powerful structure of the QFT philosophy which rules the world as of today with utmost precision?  Buddha is venerated as the first physicist and it seems ironic to not view his omniscience with the spectacles of modern physics!!

I suppose everyone sees through their own spectacles, everyone compares new doctrine with their previous knowledge, is that so? I think the monks who studied it 2000+ years ago probably weren't wearing the spectacles of a modern physicist, can't have studied it, and so it isn't "necessary to study quantum field theory to understand it". I'm also not sure what special about 20th century physics -- is that more likely to be useful than biology or neurology or psychology, or than 15th century engineering, or than 10th-century horse-training? I'm not sure it is.

Your comments on the 20th century physics flabbergasted me. 20th century quantum field theory saw the origin of our own existence: the Higgs particle.  You body is made up of atoms which gain mass through Higgs boson. Therefore many physicists call it the God particle. Something which gives mass to everything around it. Is it non- special? You take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide in your one breath. This 1 second event triggers hundreds of biochemical reactions which give energy to the brain and body. What rules these reactions? It is quantum physics! Is it non- special ?

Biology, neurology, psychology are all governed by quantum mechanical rules at the ground level.  This is not quantum mysticism or quantum woo. What are sensations? Transmission of nerve impulses through synapses? What are they basically? They are electric impulses. What rules they obey? They obey quantum mechanics rules! Sensations form a great concept in the Abhidhamma through citta. And these seem non-special to you? Scientific enquiry and research stand on the pillars of modern approach and viewpoint. Otherwise there wouldn't have been Einstein or Darwin today.

Science progressed only when it scrutinized conventional wisdom in modern light ! No one can deny this. Monks who studied 2500 years back already were sophisticated in their analysis. Galileo and Darwin challenged the Bible and viewed its tenets in modern light. Therefore science progressed.  That such facts go unnoticed by intellectuals like you is a matter of regret.

@RajratnaAdsul So why not study the Abhidhamma from the point of view of Galileo's astronomy, then, or of Darwin's theory on the Origin of Species? Or, from the point of view of 30th century physics? You seem to me to be taking 20th century physics as a "privileged frame of reference" -- which seems to me a dubious assumption. I don't want to disparage your "spectacles", but you did ask, and I don't think they're the spectacles which the original author[s] of the Abhidhamma were wearing.

Humorously, you and I can talk to each other now, even when we are separated physically by thousands of kms., is sufficient reason for me to take 20th century physics as a "privileged frame of reference", in contrast to Galileo's time or Darwin's time where I would have to wait for several months to elicit your reply !

Invoking 30th century physics is like "carrying coals to Newcastle "!

I suppose you're right. My degree was applied Maths, my career telecommunication software, I see the study of physics as a branch of contemporary technology. You've presumably read more about physics now than I have, you don't have to let me tell you that you're wrong. My own experience or decision at the time was that physics doesn't explain perception e.g. what "the mind" is (not that I've studied neurology either), nor answer some perhaps-important questions like, "what's good?" Perhaps you see the Abhidhamma as a branch of physics, a subset of physics, everything is explainable as physics?

As practicing Buddhist I have done some Vipassana courses. Meditation is " surgery of the mind" and "spotting and ridding defilements". But on the quantum field level, this is just the reorganization of the various neurotransmitters, hormones, cerebrosides in the human brain. When this reorientation is complete, we feel calm, serene and possess the quality of equanimity. All chemicals in the brain are balanced and none preponderates. The mind is stable !

The abstract, complex and esoteric classification of the elements in the Abhidhamma giving rise to consciousness parallels the complex metabolic processes in our body that sustain our life (and definitely our consciousness) , which in turn, work on principles of quantum physics. Which is why there is an intricate relationship between our blood pressure, pulse rates,circulation speed, parameters of blood, quantity of water in body to sustain life, all physics and mathematics working together behind biological processes! Any one parameter is disorganized and life is jeopardized !

@RajratnaAdsul Can you say something about the existential status of particle (choose any particle)? Is it a mere posit that makes the theory neat or there is something actual that is called a particle? Is it not our (us humans as observers) making measurements and finding properties? And once we make changes in how we measure, the properties also change?

Abhidhamma pitaka is the third basket, of tripitakas. It contains the philsophical aspects of Buddha's teachings (compiled around 2 millenia ago; 500/600 years after the time of Buddha, kept alive thorugh an oral tradition).
QFT is a specialised discipline within Physics that came up around 20th century.
For two millenia there are records of people unedrstanding, in different extents the contents of Buddha's teaching (therefore abhidhamma pitaka) with traditions of vast commenataries that extends to various countries in Asia.
It clearly then doesn't seem that one needs to understand QFT in order to understand Abhidhamma pitaka.

It is not necessary but it certainly helps. The main reason is that since quantum physics is an empirical subject, it is possible for non science students to follow the developments in quantum physics through very informative videos/data on the internet. The moment quantum physics descends to the non-empirical level, whatever is produced in the name of quantum physics are postulations sans empirical evidence.
                                                                                The widely accepted String Theory is perhaps a good example of such a postulation. The Buddha arrived at similar conclusions as the String theory via his Dhamma Theory. Both theories go below the levels of sub atomic energies to the level of Information.                                                                                Abhidhamma, at its core, tells us that it is the Information embedded in the mental and material phenomena, that finally determine, not only our fate (karma) but that of the universe as well. The basis for the Information stored is primarily morality, which is a not a field of science.  Presumably, at this point Quantum Physics ceases to have any bearing on Abhidhamma. The String theory comes alive, with the mastery of the Abhidhamma.
Possibly the best example of a direct link between Quantum Physics and Abhidhamma is the Double Slit Experiment, which demonstrates scientifically that it is consciousness that constructs matter from energy (electrons). The Abhidhamma goes far beyond this experiment to demonstrate that it is consciousness which  "constructs" all the mental and material phenomena of the universe.
To quote from page XI of ''The Spontaneous Healing of Belief" by Gregg Braden* "Paradigm shattering experiments published in leading edge, peer reviewed journals, reveal that we are bathed in a field of intelligent energy that fills what used to be thought of as empty space. Additional discoveries show beyond any reasonable doubt, that this field responds to us, it re-arranges itself - in the presence of our heart based feelings and beliefs, and this is the revolution that changes everything".
The field of intelligent energy is I believe the dhammas i.e. the bits of Information embedded in the mental and material phenomena, that, together with Consciousness form the core of the Abhidhamma. The Strings referred to in the theory are, I believe, of a similar nature.
                                                                                If the Heart based Feelings and Beliefs are of a wholesome nature, Abhidhamma shows the Way to close in on Liberation.
Therefore, there is a strong case for Quantum Physics and Abhidhamma to live in symbiosis, as genuine seekers will undoubtedly be the final beneficiaries.

it's probably a bit strong to say string theory is widely accepted. there's a lot of faith in it within the physics community, but to be accepted we need to bridge the gap with experimental physics first

also quantum physics isn't really an empirical subject (though I'm not really sure what that phrase means). there are huge number of experiments that agree with the theory to an unparalleled degree of accuracy, but it's not purely empirical. there's a lot of very solid theory involved too

My understanding stems not from science but from the grey areas of meditative experience. Often these grey areas can be clarified through the doctrinal scriptures but these too remain theoretical. In my experience the closest I could get to a ''practical explanation ' of meditative phenomena was through QFT. The ''Double Slit experiment" demonstrating the relationship between visual consciousness and the conversion of waves of energy into matter (electrons) was to me, a game changer. ''Bridging the Gap'' is achieved through ''experiments'' conducted in the Mind and not in the laboratory.

It is not necessary because the matter in Abhidhamma is simple more than in physic.
If the practitioner spends too much time in physics, then they have no time left for the practice.


text:
Continuity With Meditation Practice
I have been practising compassion meditation somewhat consistently. I usually try to do so in the morning and in the evening. Somehow, I've come to view these two moments as 'ideal' in terms of meditation. But, when I skip a meditation session, I am afraid or unwilling to meditate outside of those morning and evening times.
Would it bring more benefit to just meditate whenever possible, independently of a routine schedule? I feel like meditating during the day (other than morning or evening) will maybe affect my schedule, making my evening meditation 'too much'.
In sum, is it profitable to meditate outside of schedule (or even disregard schedule) to compensate for skipped sessions?

I hate to sound too critical, because you appear to have a healthy meditation regime, so kudos for that. Having said that, adhering too strictly to a specific routine runs the risk of being silabbatupadana, i.e. clinging to a ritual for it's own sake.
Based on contemporary learning theory, more frequent meditation is likely more favorable for developing the dhyanas, over a strict routine, or having few session with longer duration, for instance. I wouldn't be surprised if the suttas reflects these findings.
To sum up: a scheduled routine helps, as well as meditating often, even when it's outside your regular routine.

adhering too strictly to a specific routine runs the risk of being silabbatupadana, i.e. clinging to a ritual for it's own sake., that's pleasing food for the defilements (i.e. especially laziness in the case here)... :-)

Particularly with Karuna/Compassion it is most beneficial to not only have formal meditation time devoted to it but to make it a living practice by checking in with how (and if) compassion is coming into play during your daily interactions. Looking for opportunities for compassion to arise in response to situations throughout the day is a powerful practice. Also learning to allow it to grow or expand in the moment that more of it is needed. This will boost your progress more than just adding to or adjusting sitting times.


text:
"Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe.", true?
Ven. and good Buddha-Parisatas,
A statement from a commercial Website here says:
"Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe."
Is that right, or wrong and how to understand such right?
(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

Two suttas come to mind.
Assu Sutta (SN 15.3)

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said:

"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1):

"But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.

"Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

"Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'

Canonically the Buddha is credited with [re]discovering the Dhamma, and (I presume) with creating the Sangha and the Vinaya.
But I think the statement "Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe" was meant to be viewed in context, where the content was, "Difference From Other Religions":

There are, other religions which teach e.g. that "God created heaven and earth" or perhaps that "God created human's souls".
Conversely I think that Buddhism doctrine is that the origin of samsara is "an unanswered question", and even that people inherit their own karma. The Buddha acted as a teacher, a leader, a worthy example.

The Buddha is one who discovers the 4 Noble Truths with one's own efforts unguided by a teacher or previous teachings. The Buddha does not create any creatures or the universe.
Creatures and the universe is created by cause and effect. This is a self-sustaining law this does not need a lawgiver or mediator.

Sure? Where does Upasaka arises from?

According to the Dona Sutta (quoted below), the Buddha does not play any role like a creator or sustainer or even as a creature in the universe.
He is simply awake.

"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a
  deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I
  am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No,
  brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you
  answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being
  are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I
  would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made
  like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not
  destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were
  not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being:
  Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra
  stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for
  future arising.
"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in
  the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water,
  in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having
  overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me,
  brahman, as 'awakened.'

the Buddha does not play any role like a creator or sustainer, if so the quote has probable causeless arised...

Ven and good Buddha-Parisata,
In the case on whould say that the "Maha-Brahma Buddha" did not create existances and worlds, one would speak wrongly about the Tathagata.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "I am a brahman, responsive to requests, open-handed, bearing my last body, an unsurpassed doctor & surgeon. You are my children, my sons, born from my mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, heirs to the Dhamma, not heirs in material things... iti 100

He of course did not address those not related to him, outsiders, being still children, relatives of Mara.
And in this way he is also regarded by those in relation to the Tripple Gems. Without relation to him and his heritage, the Dhamma carried by the Sangha, one can never be helped by the Tripple Gems, having the Buddha as it's origin.
Other then ideas of people thinking they can just use what comes along, people of ingratitude, of no integrity, unrelated, the Buddha taught depended origin and right view, never denying duties in relations, parents, Brahmas, giver, goodness ...

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)

Depending "creation":

It is in dependence on me (the Buddha) as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.  (Upaddha Sutta)

Feel given to ask for further explainings if still doubt and wishing to erase it.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)

The Buddhist universe is cyclically created and then destroyed, a process which has no beginning. In the era of creation a "primordial wind" is said to generate the universe

The Vivartakalpa begins with the arising of the primordial wind, which
  begins the process of building up the structures of the universe that
  had been destroyed at the end of the last mahākalpa. As the extent of
  the destruction can vary, the nature of this evolution can vary as
  well, but it always takes the form of beings from a higher world being
  born into a lower world. The example of a Mahābrahmā being the rebirth
  of a deceased Ābhāsvara deva is just one instance of this, which
  continues throughout the Vivartakalpa until all the worlds are filled
  from the Brahmaloka down to Naraka.

In a similar way to how fire usually destroys the universe.
Obviously, the processes of rebirth themselves (rather than the world they inhabit) are driven by karma.
There is no "creator God" in Buddhism. There are many gods, but these gods are not self subsisting, and will be reborn as something else.
I'm not very familiar with the idea of "primal Buddhas", but because ignorance is beginningless it would be wrong to say phenomena are created by, rather than emanate etc., from them.

Maybe good householder takes a look here.

i think you're equivocating on 'brahman'...

That's what one might think, but the topic is on Buddha-Dhamma.


text:
Dependent origination and Einstein's relativity
How Buddhist theory of causality anticipates modern views of Einstein relativity.

Not at all -- Buddhist theory of causality doesn't anticipate modern views of Einstein relativity.
Einstein's relativity is about two things:

Speed of light is constant
Acceleration due to gravitational field is indistinguishable from e.g. standing on an accelerating platform

These aren't mentioned in, aren't the topic of, I don't see how they're even relevant to, the doctrine of dependent origination.
Dependent origination is about, something like, "How does a sense of 'self' arise? Given that everything is 'non-self' then what does exist instead of self, which people mistake as self?"
If you've studied both as I have, you might fabricate some connection -- "What about the 'observer' that Einstein refers when describing thought-experiments, is that relativistic 'observer' related to Buddhist doctrine of 'self'?" -- but I've little or no doubt that is a fabrication and not inherent in the doctrine ... it's a reflection of people's (of the mind's) innate tendency to create hypothetical connections between different experiences (in this case e.g. the experience of learning dependent origination and of learning Einstein's theories of relativity), and is not inherent at all in, isn't a property of, the doctrine itself.

...like, "How does a sense of 'self' arise? Given that everything is 'non-self' then what does exist instead of self, which people mistake as self?", my person "fears" that the Buddha never taught on such. That's Philosophy, also not Dhamma, good householder Chris, just that such would not make his answer non-beauty.

"How does a sense of self arise?" is related to "birth" and so on, isn't it? And towards the other side of the wheel are the skandhas (summarised as "contact") which we're told not to mistake as 'self', isn't that so? How would you summarise Dependent origination -- what is "about"? Would you just say that it describes what it describes without even mentioning 'self'?

How suffering arises and suffering decays, good householder. The rest are (mostly wrong) views and speculations. Would you just say that it describes what it describes without even mentioning 'self'?, as the Buddha didn't go into that matter.

Thank you. Yes, "how suffering arises" seems a better/clearer description of it, without even mentioning self. The translator's introduction to DN 15 says e.g. "the second part of the discourse, taking up the teaching of not-self, shows how dependent co-arising gives focus to this teaching in practice" but it's probably clearer to see DO as anatta instead of being an alternative doctrine (compared to) self view.

repeat offender :-)

Physics is the study of predicting the cause and effect of impermanent phenomena.
Buddhism is the practice of ending the suffering caused by attachment to impermanent phenomena.

Is the eye permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.”
“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Suffering, sir.”  --MN146

This may not answer directly your question, but it's useful to keep it in mind.
While conditionality can be applied to any phenomena in general to explain how the interaction of multiple factors give rise to some conditioned phenomenon, conditionality in buddhism is used as model to explain how suffering and instiafaction arises, and which conditions allow it to occur.
Remember that the main goal of the Buddha's teaching was to end suffering and insatisfaction by understanding its conditions, and by uprooting them.
Kind regards!

Householder Shobha Adsul,
They are not related but such views existed already at the Buddhas time: See Lokayatika Sutta, Cosmologist.
There are also advanced studies of the old origin of science and the Lokaya-schools of India.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release, overcome maccharia)

I definitely agree with ChrisW when he says they're clearly distinct ideas with different implications. I feel perhaps it would be interesting to merely observe what similarities there are, for the sake of knowledge.
Buddhist dependent origination suggests everything occurs from cause and effect, is interrelated by causality. The more transcendent version of this process is emptiness, in which causes and effects are seen as non-existent ultimately, as mere constructions.
I guess this aspect, of emptiness, is what you must be thinking about because it does have similarities with Einstein's discovery, at least in respect to form. Though unrelated to light, emptiness would question the nature of reality, i.e. samsara, prodding into the way appearances are illusory, unreal and relative. Einstein's discovery does achieve this, bending the way we habitually conceive reality.
Yet, Einstein's discovery pertains to material consequences and is immediately applicable upon matter to create effects, such as the atomic bomb. Emptiness is a mental quality linked with wisdom, and its material consequences are indirect. In Buddhism, emptiness is considered as a 'hidden' phenomena, whereby it does not appear immediately to the senses and requires training to perceive.
I am unsure this is exactly what you were asking, as I assumed you meant emptiness on the basis of it being distinctly buddhist (you specified Buddhism in your question), rather than Indian causality (akin to cause and effect) which was present before or alongside Buddhism. In any case, I hope it helps!

Yes. Lord Buddha has chanted regarding all quantum mechanic theories & we use most of them in general practices of Buddhism.
You'll find detailed answers in the following links,
Traveling to the end of the Cosmos - Time Travel
Buddhism & Time Travel


text:
What is meant by the impossibility "A Buddha can not help someone not related to him"?
What is meant by the impossibility "A Buddha can not help someone not related to him, no relative of him"?
Is said to be one of the three things a/the Buddha can not do. How should that be understood? And what is needed to become one that a Buddha could help? Who is a relative, are the relatives, of the Buddha?
[Related and given in tiven sphere: Buddha can not help one not related to him? Buddha kann keinem "Fremden" nicht helfen?.
(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

I think I found explanations online -- they were in Chinese, and so I didn't reference them, but I read several (with some difficulty) via Google Translate and tried to paraphrase or summarise what I understood in this answer. I think it's described as meaning, "someone who won't relate with him", won't have a relationship with him, dislikes him.

"What is meant by" and source are two different questions, aren't they? If coming along in this way 70% of questions here are to be closed, even more serious.

btw. householder Chris answered both... and not at all equal.

It's possible to guess a meaning, or to fabricate a meaning which matches your preconceptions, but I think it's useful to know the source (the context, the commentary) before you decide "what is meant by". My answer below was based on a guess and on comparing it to the Pali suttas. But this answer, which tries to identify the source, also explains "what is meant by" -- that was based on "research" i.e. using Google to find and read Chinese-language pages.

As wishing... my person knows where the usual answers come from.

Related in this case does not mean by blood. Rather it is in terms of belief in the shared Buddhist philosophies, or at a minimum maintaining an open mind on the subject. Someone not related has no interest in attaining liberation, and such a person cannot be forced or coerced. Thus, they cannot be helped.

It is said the Monks as the Buddha's children. Likewise, it can be considered that someone adhering to the dhamma becomes his relative. In this context, if you do not fall into the path of Dhamma ("become a relative of the Buddha") one does not achieve liberation.
Also if one gives his children for monkhood then one becomes related to the Buddha and Sasana. This is considered to accelerate one's goal of becoming enlightened, but this is not a must to get enlightenment.

At a festival for the dedication of the Great Pataliputra monastery called the Aśokārāma as well as the other viharas built by Ashoka, Moggaliputta-Tissa, in answer to a question, informed Ashoka that one becomes a kinsman of the Buddha's religion only by letting one's son or daughter enter the Sangha. Upon this suggestion, Ashoka had both his son Mahinda and daughter Sanghamitta ordained (Mhv.v.191ff.).

Moggaliputta-Tissa

The context, good householder, is liberation from Suffering, and all beings incl. Upasaka Sirinath, desiring for such.

Adhering to his Dhamma: how is that possible without being related to the Buddha? It would be just one own perceided teaching, not in relation to him.

And if the is "the Dhamma" (something unrelated, inherent) no Buddha would be required for liberation, would it, good householder?

Suminda, I think the context was this answer though that answer isn't referenced (and appears to be from a Chinese source, I don't know if it might be Pali too).

It is related to the teachings of the Buddha, even found in the Tipitaka, Nyom @ChrisW.  - if one gives his children for monkhood then one becomes related to the Buddha and Sasana, worthy another question, this traditional idea, good householder Sirinath.

@SamanaJohann Can you "reference" it in the Tipitaka?

As if my person would be scholar or googler... :-) lets see, of cause my person could, good householder.


text:
Source: direct literary origin of "three things a Buddha can not do"?
Householder "?? English research institute" quoted:

The three things a buddha can't do (如來 三不能 Buddha's three incapacities)
  1.不能免 定業衆生 He cannot destroy bad karma for anyone.
  2.不能度 無緣衆生 He cannot save the people unrelated to him.
  3.不能盡 衆生界 He cannot save the whole world of all living things

rightly answering here.
For the increase of faith and as possibility to make merits in such (as well as asked by ChrisW in a comment):
Where can this statement be found literary in the basked of the heritage of the Buddhas teachings?
(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

So far as I can tell these "three" are attributed to a Chan monk named Yuangui 元珪 (date 644 through 716).
An example story to illustrate  the first ("can't destroy karma") is his being unable to stop a king destroying the Sakyamuni clan.
I think the second means "can't save people who refuse to relate with him". The example story is of an old woman who disliked him when she saw him. He used his supernatural ability to miraculously show her everything, and she disliked that too. But she liked or had an affinity for Ananda when she saw Ananda, and so learned from Ananda instead.
The third is explained as something like, the people are (at least in part) saved or not saved through their own effort (their own understanding etc.).


text:
Metaphysical Contemplation and Speculation
There are many parables and stories from the Buddha's life suggesting he valued above all what is practical and conducive to virtue. He discouraged metaphysical speculation and musings.
Given without knowledge one can only speculate, does Buddhism suggest one should delay certain questions until one can empirically get a definite answer?
For example, the jhanas are not immediately accessible, and thinking about them might lead to speculation. What is speculation in Buddhism? Should one always restrict their attention and cognition to what is immediately accessible?
I guess I could also add: How does one know when one is speculating?

It's an odd question. I can't see how we could be speculating and not know it. Perhaps I'm missing the meaning of the question.

Well, I said that thinking that people generally hold beliefs that are supported by different degrees of evidence. I feel sometimes we contemplate subjects for which the evidence is shaky, not entirely certain, and sometimes the line between knowledge and hypothesis becomes blurred.

All very true. If it weren't true the illusion might not work.

OP: Given without knowledge one can only speculate, does Buddhism suggest one should delay certain questions until one can empirically
  get a definite answer?
OP: For example, the jhanas are not immediately accessible, and thinking about them might lead to speculation. What is speculation in
  Buddhism? Should one always restrict their attention and cognition to
  what is immediately accessible?

The Buddha certainly valued pragmatism and discouraged metaphysical speculation.
Does this mean that ALL speculation is discouraged?
The answer to this is NO. Only speculation that is not useful towards the ending of suffering is discouraged.
For e.g. when did samsara first begin? How did the universe originate? What's the range of the Buddha's abilities? How do the consequences of karma work precisely? You can find some of these in Acintita Sutta and also the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. Speculation on topics like these were strongly discouraged.
As for topics that are useful towards the ending of suffering, speculation is not discouraged. Without investigation, contemplation, reflection and speculation, it's impossible for a learner to learn and understand new things. Correcting your mistaken speculations is a great learning method.
Over time, as you learn and understand more aspects of the Dhamma and gain more insight, your speculations would be replaced by wisdom. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle of which you do not know how the final picture looks like. But it gets clearer over time.
Also, in the suttas, asking difficult questions based on speculative thinking was not just allowed by the Buddha but also used by him as a tool to convey teachings.
For example, from SN 12.46:

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What now, Master
  Gotama: Is the one who acts the same one who experiences [the results
  of the act]?"
[The Buddha:] "[To say,] 'The one who acts is the same one who
  experiences,' is one extreme."
[The brahman:] "Then, Master Gotama, is the one who acts someone other
  than the one who experiences?"
[The Buddha:] "[To say,] 'The one who acts is someone other than the
  one who experiences,' is the second extreme. Avoiding both of these
  extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by means of the middle:
  (explains dependent origination)
When this was said, the brahman said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent,
  Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what
  was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to point out the way to one
  who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes
  could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many
  lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for
  refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May Master Gotama
  remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day
  forward, for life."

And there are many more such examples in the suttas. In the Attakari Sutta, we find someone speculating that there is no self-doer and he was corrected by the Buddha.
Of course, one also needs to practise the teachings (through the Noble Eightfold Path) and not just contemplate it. But, investigation, contemplation, reflection and speculation forms part of the journey of learning the Dhamma, in order to foster Right View, which is the forerunner of the path.

OP: I guess I could also add: How does one know when one is speculating?

If you have doubt (vicikiccha) in your mind, then you're most likely speculating about the Dhamma. The explanation of doubt in Buddhism from this Wikipedia page is:

The reality of vicikicchā is not the same as what we mean by doubt in
  conventional language. Vicikicchā is not doubt about someone's name or
  about the weather. Vicikicchā is doubt about realities, about nāma and
  rūpa, about cause and result, about the four noble Truths, about the
  “Dependent Origination”.

Another sign of mistaken speculation is that it may lead you towards the three poisons of lust/ greed, aversion and delusion. A good example of this is the Vesali Sutta - in which some monks who misunderstood the Dhamma committed suicide.

Did I understand correctly that you could speculate about topics (i.e. contemplate them) in a good way IF they're related to the cessation of suffering?

Yes. Over time, as you learn and understand more aspects of the Dhamma and gain more insight, your speculations would be replaced by wisdom. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle of which you do not know how the final picture looks like. But it gets clearer over time.

Kesa,puttiya Sutta (Kālāma Sutta) encourages free inquiry but this may also lead to misinterpretations due to erroneous reasoning. Even experiences can be miss identified and miss interpreted. [Brahma,jala Sutta]
In the context of Buddhism, it is best one's questions and speculations are best geared towards understanding the 4 Noble Truths which gives rise to the right view.

"And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view."
— DN 22

Right View
Ultimately one's understanding would be based on:

learning of the dhamma (pariyatti)
put it into practice (patipatti)
verification of what was learned at the experiential level (pativedha)

If one tries to interpret empirical experiences by oneself one may be miss led. What is wise or praiseworthy if to look for the theory that explains the experience.
Ultimately only the fully enlightened Buddha has the know-how to correctly infer every experience. One speculation may be right or wrong. To find what is right one might need to consult the dhamma.
For part of the dhamma, ones hs not experienced the best cause of action is to learn the theory and practice. Put the practice into action and verify both theory and practice.

As a side note, the 1st few Jhana's are accessible if one practice the technique properly. It is a matter of putting in the time and effort to do it

Speculation is the rumination on any topic that can only be truly apprehended through direct insight.  Unfortunately, about the only way you'll ever figure out if you're guilty of that is by asking your teacher.  I know this sounds like a flip answer, but it's the only safe way (at least until you're enlightened to some degree) to ensure that what you're coming up with isn't just flabby philosophizing.  Let me give you an example.  There's a koan that goes like this:

Case 29 from the Mumonkan: The Sixth Patriarch's "Your Mind Moves"
  The wind was flapping a temple flag, and two monks started an argument.
  One said the flag flapped, the other said the wind flapped; they
  argued back and forth but could not reach a conclusion. The Sixth
  Patriarch said, "It is not the wind that moves, it is not the flag
  that moves; it is your mind that moves." The two monks were
  awe-struck.
  Mumon's Comment
  It is not the wind that moves; it is not
  the flag that moves; it is not the mind that moves. How do you see the
  patriarch? If you come to understand this matter deeply, you will see
  that the two monks got gold when buying iron. The patriarch could not
  withhold his compassion and courted disgrace.
  Mumon's Verse
       Wind, flag, mind, moving,
       All equally to blame.
       Only knowing how to open his mouth,
       Unaware of his fault in talking.

When I was working with this koan, I was convinced that Master Mumon was talking about something along the lines of how the wind is karma, we're flags, and that our mind moves as a result of that.  If only we could suspend karma and escape that, we'd be liberated.  My teacher told me I was full of shit.  Next I told him that everything exists in the mind; that experience isn't real and that only our minds are producing it.  He proceeded to throw the meditation bell at me and asked if it was all in my head, why did I flinch when he threw the bell!
I eventually answered the koan (and just an FYI - it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with anything I wrote above), but without my teacher there to reject my ridiculous ideas, I'd still be working on it today.  So to answer your question - you never know if you're speculating or not.  Only your teacher can tell you when you've gone off the rails.


text:
what is the meaning of the cryptic formula in the 4sp satipatthana formula? (for the Chinese parallel)
Can anyone -- who knows chinese -- explain whether the interpretation of the cryptic formula in the Chinese agama parallel to MN 10 is the same as my interpretation?
My interpretation is that "seeing body as body" means "seeing the body according to reality as it actually is" -- rather than how the Theravada commentary interprets it, i.e. "body in body" as meaning "you contemplate body in isolation of the 3 other frames of 4sp".
Here is the chinese sarvastivada MA 98 || MN 10 (B. Analayo trans.)

“Now I, being the Tathāgata of the present, free from attachment and fully awakened, have attained unsurpassable and complete awakening by abandoning the five hindrances, which defile the mind and weaken wisdom, by dwelling with the mind well established in the four satipaṭṭhānas, and by cultivating the seven factors of awakening.
“What are the four? [They are]
the satipaṭṭhāna of contemplating the body as a body, in the same way [the satipaṭṭhāna] of contemplating feelings [as feelings],
[the satipaṭṭhāna of contemplating] mind [as mind], and
the satipaṭṭhāna of contemplating dharmas as dharmas.

https://suttacentral.net/ma98/lzh/taisho

「云何為四？觀身 如身念處，如是觀覺、心、法如法念處。云何觀 身如身念處？比丘者，行則知行，住則知住，坐 則知坐，臥則知臥，眠則知眠，寤則知寤，眠 寤 則知眠寤。如是比丘觀內身如身，觀外 身如身，立念在身，有知有見，有明有達， 是謂比丘觀身如身。復次，比丘觀身如身， 比丘者，正知出入，善觀分別，屈伸低昂，儀 容庠序，善著僧伽梨及諸衣鉢，行住坐臥，眠 寤語默皆正知之。如是比丘觀內身如身， 觀外身如身，立念在身，有知有見，有明有 達，是謂比丘觀身如身。

For reference, this is how I translate and interpret the Pali 4sp formula:

Meaning of the cryptic 4sp formula
He abides, continuously seeing the body as a body, [as it actually is, according to reality]...
He abides, continuously seeing the experienced-sensations as experienced-sensations, [as it actually is, according to reality]...
He abides, continuously seeing the mind as mind, [as it actually is, according to reality]...
He abides, continuously seeing the ☸Dhamma as ☸Dhamma, [as it actually is, according to reality]...

There's a fuller post explaining and justifying my interpretation is at
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-real-meaning-of-cryptic-formula-in.html

I tried to edit for clarity, please correct if I made a mistake, especially in the second paragraph.

"seeing body as body" and "body in body" both means "seeing the body according to reality as it actually is". This is to see the body without any additional interpretations or view. Essentially seeing what is there as it is.
This does not mean "you contemplate body in isolation of the 3 other frames of 4sp". You can choose to if you want to as your main focus, but any of the 4sp one cannot do purely in an isolated manner as one influences the other. E.g. if you are doing kayanupassana this influence vedena. Following highlights how the 4 elements (part of kayanupassana) influence feelings.

vedana can certainly be connected with three of the four mahabhuta (elements), which are collectively known as rupa. These three are pathavi (earth element), tejo (fire element) and vayo (air element). Apo (water element) is too subtle to touch, or is so subtle that one finds difficulty in feeling it. Now, to illustrate the connection between vedana and the three bhuta, when you have a cramp, which is the tightening of the muscles, it is pathavi; when you feel temperature of the body it is tejo; when you suffer from pain in the stomach, it may be something to do with vayo, for when the air in your stomach is stuck and finds no vent to get out, you have that experience of unpleasant feeling called pain. The connection of vedana with these mahabhuta makes it all the more manifest and helps one realize its true nature.

Source: Vipassana and Vedana as Understood by a Novice by U Tin Lwin

Also any of the 4sp you cannot do purely isolated as one influences the other., that: isn't it a contradicion of Upasakas answer, in and of itself? At the beginning, yes, but that is the purpose of the encouragement 'in and of itself' isn't it also the starter of Upasaka answer? Right here and now to put into frame of referance, satipatthana.

Prajnaparamita in 10,000 lines, that user12901 linked, says the following:

Moreover, Śāradvatīputra, the maturity of a great bodhisattva being also entails the four applications of mindfulness which are correctly retained by skill in means. If you ask what these four are, they may be described as follows:
(1) Great bodhisattva beings who are diligent, alert, and mindful, after eliminating worldly covetousness and sadness without apprehending anything, with regard to the inner body, continue to observe the physical body, without generating any apperceptions dependent on the physical body. Similarly, those who are diligent, alert, and mindful, after eliminating worldly covetousness and sadness without apprehending anything, with regard to the outer body, continue to observe the physical body, without generating any apperceptions dependent on the physical body. Similarly, those who are diligent, alert, and mindful, after eliminating worldly covetousness and sadness without apprehending anything, with regard to the inner and outer body combined, continue to observe the physical body, without generating any apperceptions dependent on the physical body.
(2) Those who are diligent, alert, and mindful, after eliminating worldly covetousness and sadness without apprehending anything, with regard to inner feelings, outer feelings, and combined inner and outer feelings, continue to observe feelings, without generating any apperceptions dependent on feelings.
(3) Those who are diligent, alert, and mindful, after eliminating worldly covetousness and sadness without apprehending anything, with regard to the inner mind, the outer mind, and the combined inner and outer mind, continue to observe the mind, without generating any apperceptions dependent on the mind.
(4) Those who are diligent, alert, and mindful, after eliminating worldly covetousness and sadness without apprehending anything, with regard to inner phenomena, outer phenomena, and combined inner and outer phenomena, continue to observe phenomena, without generating any apperceptions dependent on phenomena.

The comment says:

The expression “without apprehending anything” [means] without perceiving anything as inherently existing.

Also, the word "apperceptions" here translates the Sanskrit word "vijnapti" which means "interpretation".

As was pointed out in other answers, Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates this piece as "body (etc) in and of itself". In his awesome book, Wings of Awakening, he explains that it means that the meditator must enter "phenomenological mode", where all phenomena are studied as they appear to the raw observation, without adding the typical worldly interpretations and attitudes.

Buddha himself teaches the following practice in Bahiya Sutta:

Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.

The way I understand all this is, Sathipattana is not some separate meditation practice, but actually training to dwell in suchness. Which means, laying aside all preconceptions, biases, attachments, judgements and side-taking. What's left is completely purified perception of things as they are, yathabhuta, without "asava"s.

there's some overlap with thanissaro's "body in and of itself" with my interpretation, but mine is wider and more general. For example, you can 'see the body as a body as it actually is' without having to ONLY restrict yourself to phenomological body part observation. And in the dhamma-anupassana frame, our interpretations are radically different.

"As it actually is" is waaay to ambiguous IMO. There is a reason all teachers, ancient and modern emphasize nonjudgmental awareness, freedom from the known, no preconceptions, etc. The examples I quoted above make it clear that what we are talking about is (overcoming) imputation or projection, not merely seeing things "as they actually are, according to our preconceptions"

'as it actually is' comes from 'yatha bhuta', and it's not realization based on projection and preconceptions. 'yatha bhuta' is used to describe when arahants, stream enterers perceive reality. And my interpretation is based on satipatthana samyutta's SN 47.4, where yatha bhuta is explicitly used to describe all 4 frames. Non judgmental awareness has it's place, but it is absolutely not the definition of 'sati' as many modern teachers wrongly teach.

Alright, I hear you but aren't you going against all the textual evidence I brought above?

I don't know what you're referring to specifically Andrei. I agree with your bahiya interpretation, and that's what I wrote in the blog, that the bahiya passage and the 4sp cryptic formula are primarily emphasizing that. The prajnaparamita passage looks like standard 4sp formula text, but depending on who translated from what source, they may come up with quite different interpretations, just as my interperation based on the pali is different than the vast majority.

Prajnaparamita adds unique details about not apprehending and not generating apperceptions dependent on X.

Householder, Upasaka Frank, Interested,
even traditional translations often use mentioned translations, but those can be not assumed of being made by path practicing Venerables.
As far as traced, my person has only seen Ven. Thanissaro transporting it well in/with "in and of itself", also explaining the approach well, meaning not putting in relation to anything. Neither a perception of it, or when rupa or nama "really" is traced => no I, not I, my, not-my-making of what one likes to be mindfull, inwardly, outwardly... no "sakka", giving into, "kaya" group.
May Nyom simply try to known by himself.
One having not attained Jhana or still firm in Sakaya (giving into group, relation - viewing) ditthi, is not capable to understand of what "in and of itself", "considered by itself" ("an und für sich", a sallop used way of speech in German to cut off what is not essence) means.
My person discussed that also with Ven. Ariyavaṃsa Thera on PP, lets see if possible to add a link... here: Satipaṭṭhāna – setting up mindfulness (one may be careful in regard of the danger of sakkaya-ing in philosphy there). So only in and of itself to be investigated. Althought Venerable prefers the traditional translation, discussion and reaction proofs the right understanding and may serve also those used to traditional sanna, sign, word, in regard of the to-liberation-leading essence, meaning, attha, of this grammatical conjunction.
(Note that this Gift of Dhamma is not meant for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

thanks for the linked threads, i'll check it out

Without answering the question, You also have the tibetan suttas, but ofc they may not be parallel to the suttas in pali. Since those people use sanskrit, you have to search for smṛti or mindfulness directly
for instance
http://translator-tools.84000.co/glossary-items.html?term=mindfulness
in the The Transcendent Perfection of Wisdom in Ten Thousand Lines, they claim

Application of mindfulness which, with regard to feelings, observes feelings

http://read.84000.co/translation/UT22084-031-002.html#UT22084-031-002-4055
Perhaps there is also some parallel suttas in gandhari?
for instance in
http://www.buddhism.org/?p=926
http://www.buddhism.org/?p=930
and the books
A Gāndhārī Version of the Rhinoceros Sūtra
and
https://books.google.com/books?id=UoV5Dz20oo4C&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=mindfulness#v=onepage&q=mindfulness&f=false
The texts in gandhari are here https://www.gandhari.org/a_manuscripts.php

interesting. looking at the sanskrit though, even then the english translation with "with regard to body they contemplate body", the sanskrit only shows one 'kaya' in there.