text:
is merit just ok (not great)?
In the sutra it says:

“And what is the cause by which effluents come into play? Ignorance is
the cause by which effluents come into play. … “And what is the result
of effluents? One who is immersed in ignorance produces a
corresponding state of existence, on the side of merit or demerit.
This is called the result of effluents. … “And what is the cessation
of effluents? From the cessation of ignorance is the cessation of
effluents; and just this noble eightfold path—right view, right
resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
right mindfulness, right concentration—is the way leading to the
cessation of effluents.

Is buddha only being nice (compassionate) to call the result of fermentation - taints, corruptions, intoxicating bias - both merit and demerit?  I recall buddha praises heightened virtue, so this seems like a contradiction to me.  Only virtuous quality could lead to merit, so is buddha calling for an end to all mentality, i.e. all mentality is essentially not good.

When the Buddha says "on the side of merit or demerit" this means, dependent on current conditions: one or the other, not both at the same time.
Because the actor is not circumspect in vision, they cannot act skillfully, heedfully, with discernment / wisdom. Because of this—and even if they think their intentions are "good"—their results will be mixed because they are still acting out of ignorance.
It's like throwing a stick up in the air: you don't know how it's going to hit the ground. See The Stick - Daṇḍa Sutta  (SN 15:9).

hmm...like a coin toss? now i now why they say call it in the air..

This makes sense. Under the influence of stress, perception & feeling tone may be altered to see conditions differently than they would otherwise be seen. This leads to a choice of action which might be skillful in one circumstance which is unskillful in the current circumstance.

liked "depending on current conditions"

i think the point is the karmic state is continuous, regardless of feeling or fermentation...

I believe reading the entire sutta in Pali provides context which makes clear what the Buddha means here.
https://suttacentral.net/an6.63
I believe that "merit" and "demerit" are close but imprecise translations about what the Buddha is trying to communicate here.
I believe that
"demerit" means something like "action compelled by untamed (carnal) flight or fight impulses to pull towards (greed) or push away (hate)"
i.e. Māra-driven actions.
"merit" means something like "action compelled by tamed (spiritual) flight or fight impulses to pull towards (greed) or push away (hate)"
i.e. Metta-driven actions
Clearly merit is more skillful than demerit.
However, I believe the Buddha is referring to a special state of being called "abandoning both merit and demerit" (

puññabhāgiyaṁ vā apuññabhāgiyaṁ vā

In the Cittavagga (https://suttacentral.net/dhp33-43), the Buddha makes clear why this is special state:

puññapāpapahīnassa

He says that
(1) When dukkha arises, for those who do NOT go to this place of "abandoning both merit and demerit", understanding does not mature.
and, by contrast,
(2) When dukkha arises, for those who DO go to this place of "abandoning both merit and demerit", fear does not exist.
What precisely is this special state?
Why does this special state promote the maturation of understanding and the extinguishment of fear?
It is neither fight nor flight, but freeze.
It is a state wherein we might enter into the ekaggata so as to best process this experience.
It is a state wherein we might respond to dukkha (notification of misprediction in our predictive model of the world) by seeking to fix the error in our predictive model that gave rise to the notification.
i.e. By seeking to increase our understanding.
Why does fear not exist for those who increase their understanding in this fashion?
Because fear is "uncertainty" in our predictive model of the world. To the extent to which we replace uncertainty with certainty, we become more fearless.
To the extent to which we respond to dukkha by cleansing the āsava which gave rise to it, our predictive model of the world will have less uncertainty. In this fashion, understanding extinguishes fear.

Avijjānirodho, bhikkhave, āsavanirodho.

If we train ourselves to habitually respond to the dukkha of misprediction by going to this place of "abandoning both merit and demerit", we will habitually create the conditions whereby the errors in our predictive model which give rise to and sustain fear, can be corrected.
However, in AN 6.63, the Buddha goes further than this to describe the precise means by which we do surgery on the saṅkhāra to make this change.
He says that contact is the source of both feeling tone and perception.
i.e. the āsava (bad habit which gave rise to the dukkha) is being sustained by a perception and feeling tone which need to be replaced.
UPDATED:
How is the the āsava (saṅkhāra conditioned by avijjā) being sustained by contact, conditioning perception & feeling tone?
My understanding is that our brain predicts sensory experience by means of sensory motor predictions. AKA saṅkhāra. We are constantly predicting sensory experience but we are unconscious of it until we make a misprediction whereupon we experience dukkha.
When we experience dukkha, this is notification of misprediction which should compel us to search for (dhamma vicaya) the saṅkhāra which predicted sensory experience incorrectly with the intention of replacing it with one that predicts sensory experience more correctly. (For a deeper explanation, see Jeff Hawkins’ “A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence”.)
Each saṅkhāra (sensory motor prediction) consists of 3 parts: (1) In this place (2) with this aim, (3) make this move. 1&2 can be thought of as “get oriented”. i.e. identify the place in our map of the world which matches the current circumstances.
I ‘think* this “matching process” is what is triggered by “contact”. When we make this connection, it’s like we are bringing order to the chaos of sensory experience by saying “I am here. I am here, I am here, …”. We maintain equanimity by moving through sensory experience by predicting sensory experience correctly in this fashion. So long as our predictions are accurate, we remain equanimous.
saṅkhāra = sam + kara = together (get oriented) + move.
IF (1) “contact” triggers the mapping of “I am here”
and (2) contact conditions “perception” and “feeling tone”
and (3) the dukkha of misprediction arises leading to a loss of equanimity and signifying a predictive error (i.e. this saṅkhāra is āsava),
THEN we should come to a full stop and question contact, perception & feeling tone because one or more of them has led us to dukkha.
I think the error can be with any of the 3 parts of the saṅkhāra:
(1) In this place, (2) with this aim, (3) make this move.
(1) In this place: Error: “I am NOT here”. Rather “I am somewhere else”.
(2) With this aim: Error: My aim is unskillful
(3) Make this move: Error: This move does not lead to the desired aim

Like “is being sustained by perception and feeling...”

Exactly. If we respond to dukkha by clinging to such things instead of uprooting them where appropriate, we remain trapped in suffering which, in turn, leads to our decay and death. Summoning the courage to face and conquer avijjā by striving to see the world the way it actually is is the cure for the disease.

liked "enter into the ekaggata so as to best process this experience."


text:
Do the 31 realms physically exist or is it a state of mind?
I know its an imponderable or unconjecturable to us putthujjanas, but do any of the 31 realms have corporeal existence or are they states of mind (mind-made) or a mixture of both? For example, does tusita heaven physically exist, or is it purely a state of mind? If tusita does exist physically then how can one get there? Is the earthly plane and the laws of physics also mind-made?

When you read the Pali Canon, they seem like places that exist that beings live in. At the end of a teaching, the Buddha would explain any similes or metaphors he used. I've never read him explain the 31 planes as a metaphor, which means he taught it as a literal existence. There are also examples of monks with past live memories talking about their previous existences or visiting other realms in this life. Maha Mogallana was known in particular for his psychic powers.
To get to Tusita, you need to create the type of karma that would lead to being reborn there. In MN 120, the Buddha explains how to influence your rebirth by aspirations. Alternatively, you develop the Divine Eye, a psychic power. To do that, practice the Noble Eightfold Path and learn the 4th jhana. That is not an easy task.
I don't think any sutta states why the laws of physics exist.

After reading your answer, it hit me that the planes do physically exist. You are right. Its kind of like how we travel on the earthly plane, i.e. if we decide to reach a destination, say Bodhgaya, we not only have to make up our mind but also have to physically travel. So in essence, we require both mental determination and physical effort. But we can transcend physics by reaching higher states of mental development, not sure how that actually unfolds, i.e. how is mind able to transcend laws of physics.

During the Mongol Yuan dynasty, where the Sakya-Mongol alliance reigned, I was a monk at a temple in Tibet. It was in the year 1247. I had a big nose and smelly breath, and I walked like an Egyptian, but I could throw dhamma bullets from my mouth like a shaolin warrior throws needles, and they liked me for that.
My general behaviour was unkempt and controversial at best, and I would often hear my fellow dhamma farers complaining about me, but they'd always finish their lamenting with, "sure, he's a weird guy, but he speaks dhamma well - let him be". The Lamas of that particular era held huge political and military responsibilities alongside their religious endeavours, which I did not envy in the slightest.
I died a peculiar death in 1261. It was precisely 49 days later that a crack team of siddhi enthusiasts tried to track me down with their divine eyes. One of those siddhi masters got too close, so I poked him in the eye with a divine poke, a special siddhi move that can be transferred into the physical world. Their confidence had been bruised as they found they were one man down for a few weeks. Regardless, they never found me, and I made damn sure!
3 weeks before I died, I deliberately vandalised a sand mandala two days before it was due to be finished as a way to teach them that impermanence doesn't follow schedules. Well, they didn't appreciate that! The sand used for the mandala had been collected from various rocks covering a 25 mile radius, painstakingly ground into sand and partially made into a rudimentary mandala, awaiting its final detailing. As you can imagine, there were some tears and a few wet robes. Mandala creation in Tibetan Buddhism was in its very infancy at that time, and they 'apprehended' the idea from the Vedas.
As you can probably incur from the style of delivery, even in my other lives, I wasn't a very conventional sort of person, and often went against the grain of things. I guess some habits never die! *wink!
My point is that all of this is a state of the mind, just like the realms, themselves. Perhaps they happened or are happening now, but regardless, they remain figments of the imagination, no matter how creative they my seem.
I do have more interesting past-life stories to share, though - even some other-realm stories! It's fun, isn't it? ;-)
If you like Buddhist cosmology, try watching Ajahn Sona's excellent 10-part series on the subject, here. It had answered a lot of questions for some of the things I was seeing in my own practice. But be warned! This region of Buddhism can captivate the mind, thus causing one to drift off from the primary objective! This was illustrated in the story of Mae Chee Kaew, who often visited these planes and spoke to the inhabitants. Her teacher, Ajahn Boowa, immediately told her to stop doing this in order to guide her towards enlightenment, and at one point he shouted at her, and for good reason! For most, it's best to steer clear!

Thank you for sharing, its very interesting and also loved the way the words are stitched. If you don't mind me asking, can you please share your experiences in other realms as well. Eagerly awaiting and curious to know. :)

@NithinManmohan - I've responded to your comment by adding another paragraph in my answer. Keep well, my friend!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does Cakkavala correspond to a solar system?
I read the description of Cakkavala in the tipitaka, and it is translated to the term "world system". It is said there are infinite Cakkavala's and light rays emanating from its sun can illuminate the whole Cakkavala, whereas light rays emanated from the Buddha can illuminate all Cakkavala's. Wow!!!
And each Cakkavala has a sun, a moon and a mount sineru. I have few questions around this:

Does this imply that a Cakkavala is equivalent to a solar system as per the modern cosmology?
Why the description of Cakkavala does not take into account other planets in the solar system?
Is mount Sineru visible only to those who have advanced mental faculties and have gained the divine eye? Just wondering how come an entire mountain is not visible to us?
If mount Sineru was visible to all, then it should be visible to the naked eye from a person living anywhere in India, right?

Have you got a telescope?

Is this very similar to the linked question, also by you?

I keep going back and forth when it comes to contemplating and comprehending about Cakkavala, and I wanted to specifically narrow down the query here so I felt the need to post the question along with few others. I well remember I had posted a question concerning Cakkavala sometime back, but I just felt the urge to discuss and hone in on my exact query here.

Since it's too similar to the other question, I made it a duplicate. Maybe you can update the other one.

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


text:
Is there any buddhist meditation technique to connect to Nature?
There is a theory that our planet might actually be alive. The sun, moon, atmospheric cycles, geological plates, etc constitute the life of our planet. Or for that matter the Universe actually might have its own consciousness, its own life, and life cycle. Is there any meditation technique to tap into the consciousness of Earth or the Universe? I am not aware of the implications of this theory from the Buddhist perspective, maybe I am being absurd here, but just in case if you subscribe to this hypothesis of Life beyond biology can we connect?

About two summers ago, I was walking through the local farmland and I noticed a very big bird coming in for a landing in the middle of the farmer's field. I watched it like a zen master, taking in the entirety of the visual spectacle, and then I wrote this. I’d rather not explain what this means in zen terms; the air of ambiguity is important when reading zen text.

The Heron Called Dogen:
The heron stands tall, firm and erect, proud
to claim the visual vastness of the farmer’s land, its abundant
fruits, and its majesty of gently rustling crops breaking the silent
theme of the countryside. Not looking back once, it flies away
unattached, leaving not a single plough in the sky.

Zen master Hongzhi (who appears to have some amazing eyebrows!) had a wonderful thing about using the nowness of nature, which is why I liked his work so much and is largely where I started. I believe at one point in his life, he brushed shoulders with Dogen and they shared various exchanges. It was studying his material where I learned how to watch nature. In fact, I'm pretty sure Hongzhi’s works are elementally foundational in the entire Caodong school, itself.
In any case, my relationship with nature developed further -

15. Stillness
Over there in the far distance, beyond the  rustling trees and the
meadow with the  flowers, barely audible... the stream trickles.
Over here in the body, beyond the mental  chatter and the colourful
tints of perception,  barely noticeable... the blood flows.
Attend there.

And then finally -

Who was the outstanding artist that built this old, dishevelled brick
wall, laden with bird shit, graffiti tags and wisteria? Was it the
mindless bricklayer, the time-honoured weather, the graffiti artist or
the slow-moving foliage? It was a collaborative effort between all
creation, and precisely why it doesn't stand out from anything else is
precisely why I'm stood here laughing at this brick wall!

Suffice to say, I became somewhat of a savant with it all, until eventually, even the horrors of the woeful realms became like the tomfoolery of nature!
For this reason, in Zen there is a deep respect for the parameters of language and to know that respect is to know the nature of Zen as it stands, naked of language, in the here-and-now.

The Buddha didn't talk about a cosmic consciousness, but he did advocate meditating outdoors.
From Mindfulness of Breathing - MN 118

"...It’s when a mendicant has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut. They sit down cross-legged, with their body straight, and establish mindfulness right there. Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out..."

From MN 107 which is on The Gradual Training

"...When they have mindfulness and situational awareness, the Realized One guides them further: ‘Come, mendicant, frequent a secluded lodging—a wilderness, the root of a tree, a hill, a ravine, a mountain cave, a charnel ground, a forest, the open air, a heap of straw.’ And they do so..."

Seclusion is not about harmonizing with nature, but being in the wilderness is a good way to avoid people.

You’ve unwittingly stumbled upon the answer to one particularly well known koan.  I’m not going to tell you which one it is because it won’t necessarily help you.  But be advised that what you encountered is real.  File it away in your back pocket for now and try not to cling to it.
Our practice mainly consists of partial insights like this.  They are bricks knocked out of the wall between us and awakening.  While the light that shines through is real, it’s not the full illumination no matter how bright it might first appear.  There’s a real danger when we attach too much importance to partial insights.  All too often we get stuck - clinging to this incomplete knowledge.  We might also weave philosophical interpretations that can stymy our practice for years.
There’s are more koans to come, more insights to be had, and dharma gates beyond measure.  Put this down and keep going!

There's no Cosmic Consciousness in Buddhism. Any consciousness that we have, depends on the six senses alone.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would
say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on
what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it
lies beyond range."
SN 35.23

However, the closest meditation on nature that I can find is the following by the Zen Master Thich Nhat Hahn from the article "The Heart Sutra: The Fullness of Emptiness":

If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating
in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain;
without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make
paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is
not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either. We can say that
the cloud and the paper inter-are. “Interbeing” is a word that is not
in the dictionary yet, but if we combine the prefix “inter-” with the
verb “to be,” we have a new verb, “inter-be.”
If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the
sunshine in it. If the sunshine is not there, the forest cannot grow.
In fact, nothing can grow. Even we cannot grow without sunshine. So we
know that the sunshine is also in this sheet of paper. The paper and
the sunshine inter-are. And if we continue to look, we can see the
logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed
into paper. And we see the wheat. We know that the logger cannot exist
without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread
is also in this sheet of paper. And the logger’s father and mother are
in it too. When we look in this way, we see that without all of these
things, this sheet of paper cannot exist.
Looking even more deeply, we can see we are in it too. This is not
difficult to see, because when we look at a sheet of paper, the sheet
of paper is part of our perception. Your mind is in here and mine is
also, so we can say that everything is in here in this sheet of paper.
You cannot point out one thing that is not here — time, space, the
earth, the rain, the minerals in the soil, the sunshine, the cloud,
the river, the heat. Everything coexists with this sheet of paper.
That is why I think the word inter-be should be in the dictionary. To
be is to inter-be. You cannot just be by yourself alone. You have to
inter-be with every other thing. This sheet of paper is, because
everything else is. Suppose we try to return one of the elements to
its source.
Suppose we return the sunshine to the sun. Do you think that this
sheet of paper would be possible? No, without sunshine nothing can be.
And if we return the logger to his mother, then we have no sheet of
paper either. The fact is that this sheet of paper is made up only of
“non-paper elements.” And if we return these non-paper elements to
their sources, then there can be no paper at all. Without non-paper
elements, like mind, logger, sunshine, and so on, there will be no
paper. As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in
the universe in it.

Everything is connected not by consciousness, but rather by inter-dependency. It's a great explanation on conditioned things, sankhara.
The rest of the article explains Mahayana Emptiness.

The Buddha normally practiced the meditation on emptiness:

MN121:3.3: ‘Ānanda, these days I usually practice the meditation on emptiness.’

This is a very deep practice that starts with the Sangha as the entry to emptiness:

MN121:4.2: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely, the oneness dependent on the mendicant Saṅgha.

And from that we proceed to wilderness (i.e., "Nature"):

MN121:4.3: In the same way, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the village and the perception of people—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of wilderness.
MN121:4.4: Their mind becomes eager, confident, settled, and decided in that perception of wilderness.

From there it goes much further...

from there it goes much further - you mean that even these emptiness liberations are also seen to be conditioned phenomena, although helpful?

@Max Stressful in particular.


text:
Criticism of atman and the vessel analogy
Some Indian Hindu philosophers (AFAIK from the Vaisheshika school) argued for the existence of atman like this: ideas, feelings, desires and knowledge need a vessel in which they are contained. And this vessel is what constitutes the eternal, unchanging atman.
I'm looking for criticisms of this argument by Buddhist philosophers, i. e. source in English translation (I came across one in a lecture a long time ago - sadly that's all I know).

The Buddha deals with eternalist views in DN1. For example, eternalist views based on recollection of past lives are introduced here:

DN1:1.33.2: It’s when some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect their many kinds of past lives.

However, for this post, we are more interested in eternalist views that are based on logic. In this case, the Buddha mentions the fourth eternalist view:

DN1:1.34.2: It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective:
DN1:1.34.3: ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar.
DN1:1.34.4: They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.’
DN1:1.34.5: This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal.
DN1:1.35.1: These are the four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal.

The Buddha does not actually present a logical argument against such views. Instead, he simply asserts that they lead to rebirth and that there is no need for such views.

DN1:1.36.1: The Realized One understands this:
DN1:1.36.2: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’
DN1:1.36.3: He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized extinguishment within himself.
DN1:1.36.4: Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping.

Briefly, the Buddha simply asserts here that there is no need to grasp at eternalism on the Noble Eightfold Path. Such grasping will not lead to the end of suffering.

I know your answer is quite long already, but if you think you could squeeze in the other eternalist views based on recollection of past lives, that would be thorough. I like the particular way in which you collate the information and present it. It's already a good answer!

The first three views deal with past lives. The answer now provides a reference for those curious about past lives. Interestingly, the Buddha's approach to past life eternalism is to point out that  grasping at such recollections is also fruitless.

I know very little about Vaisheshika, so I'm giving this an interpretation from a Buddhist perspective, just so that you're clear. And just to throw a spanner in the works at the outset, I vaguely remember going through a phase where it seemed like something was holding everything, then it passed.

ideas, feelings, desires and knowledge need a vessel in which they are
contained. And this vessel is what constitutes the eternal, unchanging
atman.

It's entirely possible that this refers to the natureless-ness of all phenomena - that nothing of quintessence can be found in all creation, not even awareness itself, which might relate to the eternal, unchanging atman - but I doubt it. In Mayahana and Theravada, this is called Sunyata and is very difficult to talk and write about without sounding like a convoluted academic or a crazy poetic genius, referring to the various forms of Dependent Origination and the Heart Sutra respectively.
It's also possible that it makes reference to a particular region along the journey, let me explain...
...the thing about this stuff is that people generally need an idea of some sort to work towards. That is how some Mahayana schools work. They point to a region just before the thing itself. Their region is called the Pure Lands. The idea about this is that one needs to captivate the self in the same way you might capture the attention of a drunk person who might be wandering near a cliff. Perhaps you'll wave a can of lager at them, and they'll turn away from danger and towards the can of lager - admittedly, this is a very un-Buddhist analogy, but never mind.
This capturing the attention of the aimless wanderer is precisely what the celebrated and prominent Lotus Sutra is about. In a similar sort of way, you might capture the attention of a person lost in delusion with a particular idea about something rather nice like the pure lands. These frilly bits, fleurons and embellishments appeal to the limited yearnings of a conditioned mind. Put simply, sometimes some minds need a little charm to follow. When they get that charm, their curiosity is pulled towards something else, which isn't spoken about all that much.
All in all, the passage sounds a lot like the cries of a subtle sense of self and in the Theravada tradition, they would quickly ferret out that blighter, as in the case of Ven. Khemeka who describes the subtle sense of self like the faint smell of cow dung upon freshly washed clothes.

"Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a
washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then
rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean &
spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye
or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it
away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual
scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.
"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned
the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am'
desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on
the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are
fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its
disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of
these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit,
'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."
Khemaka Sutta

whether you can write about sunyata or not, you should write about it, that's how it knows. sunyata is anti-essence, and what does that mean?

Thank you @blue_ego - You have an excellent point. As such, I've changed the wording slightly.

Pure lands r good idea

I'm not familiar with Vaisheshika, but I've heard of this:

And (a permanent soul has to be admitted) because of the fact of remembrance (ie., memory).
Hindu scripture Brahma-Sutra 2.2.25

This can be easily refuted. Anyone who injures his brain or suffers from dementia or Alzheimer's, will have memory loss or altered personality.
In Buddhism, mind is considered to be changing from moment to moment and it's not permanent, by any measure.

But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and
by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
arises as one thing and ceases as another.
SN 12.61


text:
How do the Vijñāna (Vinyana) get created?
There are countless beings in the 31 realms of existence, and they all seem to have a Vijñāna, or a perception of "self".
When one becomes a stream winner (e.g. sotapanna), the view of this self is shattered. They realise that there is no such thing as a "self" and that it is just an illusion caused by the apparent flow of consciousness. So, once this view is shattered, how are we to guarantee that another brand new illusion won't start again, just as it did the last time and caused us to work hard to shatter it? I guess my question is, how do these illusions/ vijñānas get created in the first place?

At the stage of Sotapanna, a break or discontinuity is seen in the regular flow of consciousness. The usual prevailing sense of self cracks, but it cracks only like laminated glass. As such, the integrity of its operation, of its illusion, gives way to an underlying truth.
The next critical step is to address something called desire and ill will. These are not perhaps the best terms, simply because they describe the way in which the mind pushes and pulls at sensory experience and because we are very socially complex, this pushing and pulling can look rather sophisticated, and thus easily overlooked.
Now, to answer your question - in the Theravada scheme - the 10 fetters model - desire & ill will (-or pushing and pulling) are the karma-creating fetters. In effect, this means that once these have been seen through, most of the way you create suffering will end. This is the garrentee that you will not fall back!
There are so many people who will partially break even the higher fetters, but because they haven't addressed fetters 4 & 5, they keep getting yanked back into karma-creating territory. You can even see this in prominent teachers.
Those people do not understand the territory, they chase emptiness like a greyhound chases a stuffed rabbit! The greyhound never actually gets the rabbit, so day after day, they chase stuffed rabbit after stuffed rabbit. What a bore! They still have good things to say and they write interesting and helpful content, even books.
In any case, you can view fetters 4 & 5 as all the ways in which you try to give a definition to the central theme of you: some things you push away, and some things you pull towards you.
In doing these things, you create (sankhara) or build, or put together a series of conditioned actions (karmas) which in turn produce a corresponding and reflective response from the world (vipaka). One then feels trapped in a self-fulfilling prophecy that only achieves what the greyhound achieves - nothing!
By the way, there's nothing wrong with getting things in the world - it's the effort and upkeep of that gnawing sense of self that might be said to cause most of your strife. Last week I travelled to the city to buy some drumsticks, and later that day I was throwing out supreme beats, so stuff still happens even without a self.

Are they chasing emptiness, the rabbit, or both?

@blue_ego - haha... it looks like you've just created your own koan!

"once this view is shattered"
Maybe the word shattered is a bit misleading (overly dramatic, stressful, etc). When we come to understand something clearly, for the first time, doesn't that normally bring a sense of relief? And maybe: new possibilities, promise, hope, etc?
Maybe we should say our self-view is adjusted, improved, clarified, that sort of thing—not shattered.
The Buddha never said that there is no self. He said that whatever is inconstant, is stressful, and it would be wrong to consider that as "me" or "mine."
On the other hand, walking The Path requires a healthy "sense of" self: this is a skillful use of the concept of "self."
"how do these illusions/ vijñānas get created in the first place?"
In a word: ignorance.
As you progress on the path, your Right View(s) replace your wrong views and ignorant views and unskillful ways. This is what it means to become a stream winner: you've entered the stream. The stream of new understandings and behaviors and results—Right View, Right Resolve, etc —and you are pulled along with all of that.
Okay, maybe you have to paddle a little, but you do it willingly, and gladly because you know there's no going back to your ignorant old ways now.
"is it guaranteed that after enlightenment we are free from it forever?" (from your comment)
There are no guarantees in life, but the Buddha says: "My actions are the only true belongings. My actions are the ground on which I stand."
You don't need (or want) other people's promises, when you've got the power of skillful action instead!
As far as knowing the truth of any of this, there's a sutta (see below) where an average person (who happens to be a prince) asks a monk about the teachings of the Buddha. But because he's a prince and doesn't want to give anything up, his question is not sincere, and he really just wants to dismiss whatever the monk says so he can get back to his life of sensuality. It's a good example of how ignorance frames and ignores whatever it needs to, in order to get what it wants—but remains ignorant in the bargain.
The main point is: guarantees are unreliable, better to put a little effort in and find out for yourself instead. Also, the view improves a little bit every step you climb.
Excerpt from MN 125 Dantabhūmi Sutta | The Level of the Tamed:

“Aggivessana, it’s as if there were a great mountain not far from a
village or town, and two companions, leaving the village or town, were
to go hand in hand to the mountain. On arrival, one of the companions
would stay at the foot of the mountain, and one would climb to the top
of the mountain. The companion staying at the foot of the mountain
would ask the companion standing on top of the mountain, ‘What do you
see, my friend, standing on top of the mountain?’
“He would say, ‘I see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful
stretches of land, & delightful lakes.’
“The other would say, ‘It’s impossible, my friend. It’s unfeasible,
that standing on top of the mountain you would see delightful parks,
delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes.’
“Then the companion standing on top of the mountain, descending to the
foot of the mountain and grabbing his companion by the arm, would make
him climb to the top of the mountain. After letting him catch his
breath for a moment, he would ask him, ‘What do you see, my friend,
standing on top of the mountain?’
“He would say, ‘I see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful
stretches of land, & delightful lakes.’
“The other would say, ‘But just now didn’t I understand you to say,
“It’s impossible, my friend. It’s unfeasible, that standing on top of
the mountain you would see delightful parks, delightful forests,
delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes”? Yet now I
understand you to say, “I see delightful parks, delightful forests,
delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes.”’
“The other would say, ‘But that’s because I was standing blocked by
this great mountain and didn’t see.’

sometimes the first time brings horror and dismay and ego-death

@blue_ego True. "In the Buddhist analysis of emotions, saṁvega is one of the primary motivations for practice—especially when coupled with pasāda, confidence that the practice leads to freedom from that inconstancy. By inducing feelings of both saṁvega and pasāda, the sutta attempts to inspire its listeners to adopt its second major concern—the need to maintain good Buddhist traditions—both for their own individual sakes and for the sake of the common good." (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN16.html)

Yes, Samvwga,.,that’s the one that I am...lol..

Sorry - I meant shatter as in to crack or burst - not in the sense of devastation or being upset. Of course it would be amazing to have this "self" view 'shattered'!

Vijñāna is consciousness, but consciousness is not self.
Consciousness in Buddhism seems to be the mind-body connection. It's the interface between the mind and the six senses (including intellect/ mind).
The self is an identity, a thought that arises in the mind.
The arising of the self, is called "birth" in dependent origination.
Dependent origination starts with ignorance, and eventually leads to birth of the self. And then the self will lead to the experience of ageing, disease and death.
This is explained in detail in this very long answer.
The stream winner will still experience conceit and a sense of self, but they no longer have it as a view. The difference between overcoming self-view and overcoming conceit, is like the difference between overcoming wrong beliefs about diet and exercise, and overcoming obesity. Please see this answer for details, which is based on the Khemaka Sutta.
How did it arise in the first place? Well, it's due to ignorance. And how did ignorance arise in the first place? Nobody knows how this entire mass of suffering originated.

"Why is that? 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. Long have
you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
released."
SN 15.3

How to prevent it from arising again?
Well, one should persevere to reach full liberation from suffering. That's the only way to ensure it.

I found the "overcoming obesity" analogy very helpful.

"Nobody knows how this entire mass of suffering originated." - that is what I'm curious about. How are we to know that it just won't start again in a while? Or is it guaranteed that after enlightenment we are free from it forever?

It’s all just an incompressible illusion, except that the action is powerfully convincing, thus deceiving the mind and hence samsara


text:
does buddha make dumb animal quote?
i can't remember, perhaps it was a dream, a vague recalling at best...where does buddha ask ‘do you want to be a dumb animal?’  I’m not accusing buddha of calling animals dumb, I’m assuming he thought some animals are dumb…like some person (animal), but that other animals are smart, like some person.  Anyway, does he say this?

Did you ever read this answer?

There is a sutta where two ascetics, one who act like an ox and one who acts like a dog ask the Buddha what their rebirths will be. The Buddha tells him he'll either go to hell, or be reborn an animal.

A second time…And a third time Puṇṇa, the ox-duty ascetic, said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, this Seniya is a naked dog-duty ascetic who does what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown to the ground. He has long taken up and practised that dog-duty. What will be his destination? What will be his future course?”

“Well, Puṇṇa, since I certainly cannot persuade you when I say: ‘Enough, Puṇṇa, let that be. Do not ask me that,’ I shall therefore answer you.

“Here, Puṇṇa, someone develops the dog-duty fully and uninterruptedly; he develops the dog-habit fully and uninterruptedly; he develops the dog-mind fully and uninterruptedly; he develops dog-behaviour fully and uninterruptedly. Having done so, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if he has such a view as this: ‘By this virtue or observance or asceticism or holy life I shall become a great god or some lesser god,’ that is wrong view in his case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal realm. So, Puṇṇa, if his dog-duty succeeds, it will lead him to the company of dogs; if it fails, it will lead him to hell.”

MN 57

'Animals' generally do not have a reflective mind. For example, if a cat is hungry, it will kill a bird to eat. The cat will not consider if that bird is a mother of other baby birds. Or, where I live, cats destroy the eggs or chicks of certain native birds that nest on the ground. The cats do not consider/reflect these birds spent weeks sitting on their eggs to have some baby birds; or the cats do not reflect whether or not these type of birds is in danger of extinction. Instead, the cats act on impulse; not being able to understand there is a lobby where I live to have cats banned from our rare geographical location.
In Buddhism, the translation of 'animal' comes from the word 'tiracchānayoni' or 'tiracchāna'. The word 'tiracchāna' means 'going crosswise or obliquely or horizontally'. The impression is 'tiracchāna' means to not evolve or go beyond instinctual patterns & reactions, similar to animals that only follow heavily programmed & limited modes of instinctual reactions & behaviors.
Therefore, the impression is the word 'tiracchāna' refers to people who simply blindly follow greed, hatred & delusion and to not reflect upon the dangers & consequences of these instinctual patterns & reactions.

Here, student, some man or woman does not visit a recluse or a
brahmin and ask: ‘Venerable sir, what is wholesome? What is
unwholesome? What is blameable? What is blameless? What should be
cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What kind of action will
lead to my harm and suffering for a long time? What kind of action
will lead to my welfare and happiness for a long time?’ Because of
performing and undertaking such action…he reappears in a state of
deprivation… But if instead he returns to the human state, then,
wherever is his status, he is stupid. This is the way, student, that
leads to stupidity, namely, one does not visit a recluse or brahmin
and ask such questions.
MN 135

Either way, you are a dumb animal.  If you don't think so, ask any other animal type.  They will more or less tell you that. Even pigs will not tell you.

“How can these recluses, sons of the Sakyans, having assembled
together on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the
half-month, sit in silence, like dumb pigs[?]


text:
Where did the Buddha say: "What a person considers and reflects upon for a long time, to that his mind will bend and incline."?

As the Buddha says, "What a person considers and reflects upon for a
long time, to that his mind will bend and incline."

The above quote is from Nyanaponika Thera, found here at Access to Insight.
Does anyone know where the Buddha says that, in the Pali Canon?
A google search of the quote was not helpful.

" stress results either in bewilderment or in search."

It's from here:

"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that
becomes the inclination of his awareness.
MN 19 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro)

“Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that
will become the inclination of his mind.
MN 19 (translated by Ven. Bodhi)

Whatever a mendicant frequently thinks about and considers becomes
their heart’s inclination.
MN 19 (translated by Ven. Sujato)


text:
Rolling a kasaya
I am trying to wear my kasaya while awaiting temporary ordination.
I have watched some videos but I seem to be getting stuck after finding the center point and rolling towards me. When I try to put my left arm in and extend it out I’m getting stuck with not enough or too much fabric too, I can’t seem to make it work.
Does anyone have any resources?
For reference, I have watched these videos a lot:
https://youtu.be/YRRzKneG238
https://youtu.be/5mAQa2BOvRw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwqLJo5_-c&t=92s


text:
How can we know if a dharma teaching is really what the Buddha taught? Is there some sort of test?
It seems that there are different "versions" of Buddhism today, and many of the teachings from these different versions appear to be at odds with one another.
I'd like a way to tell which teachings are incomplete, corrupted, or flat-out fakes. If Buddhism is really a "science" of the mind, like many teachers say, shouldn't there be ways to test things?
Are there ways to test the authenticity of a teaching?

Which Buddhist teachings are at odds with each other?

The answer below is perfect, though without an answer myself I just want to point out that the Buddha often spoke in means that would allow the sangha to remember the teachings and to pass them on. Like when you see an author has a writing style, a tout. For the Buddha this was enumeration. 4 noble truths, 8 fold path, 12 dependant links etc As well as the advice is straight forward practical advice.

If you then look at mahayana teachings, you often see they are not enumerated, are fantastical in nature and are often impractical advice, but instead fantastic religious claims.  This may be what you mean with teachings at odds with each other.

@Remyla - there is a particular way to discern Mahayana. But I agree; they have the biggest Teddy bears I have ever seen!

"there is a particular way to discern Mahayana" What do you mean, can you elaborate more please.

If you combine scholarly research with the suttas and practice the directions, you can get a good idea of what the Buddha taught. The suttas are an instruction manual. They are directions for the cessation of suffering. Each sutta is a small piece of the entire teaching. Once you read many suttas you can see how they interconnect and support each other. The vast consistency of suttas with other suttas is evidence towards their legitimacy. There are over 10,000 suttas and the consistency between them is incredible. If someone was inventing suttas they would be inconsistent with other teachings. Don't automatically throw out a teaching because you think it's inauthentic. That's a good time to look at the scholarly research and see what they think.
AN 8:53 lays out the Buddha's standard.
Not Dharma:

“Gotamī, the qualities of which you may know, ‘These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to reclusiveness; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome’: You may categorically hold, ‘This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher’s instruction.’

Dharma:

“As for the qualities of which you may know, ‘These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to reclusiveness, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome’: You may categorically hold, ‘This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’”

You may find this commentary by a Buddhist monk help:

Recognizing the Dhamma: A Study Guide by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

The Buddha also said in AN 8.19

The ocean has just one taste, the taste of salt. In the same way, this teaching and training has one taste, the taste of freedom.

In my opinion, the way to recognize the Dharma is to study and build a foundation of knowledge. Don't blindly trust a teacher. As you study, practice. There are suttas/teachings that are simple and ones that are more advanced. Choose what is at your level. By doing this you'll know for yourself if the teachings work.
The suttas are not organized with a recommended reading order. Read them in any order that makes sense. My recommendation is to focus on the Middle Length discourses as they are more "holistic", but read whatever you like. When you are looking for specific topics, this is a good search engine:

https://find.dhamma.gift/

Look for the verbs, especially "train". When the Buddha uses verbs he's typically giving instructions.
Lastly, I am not saying that Mahayana or Tibetan are invalid. Hold them up to the standard outlined in AN 8:53.

Nice answer. Thanks for your effort.

Great answer...

Here is what I've found:

It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with
poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide
him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow
removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble
warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't
have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the
man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium,
or... him.
MN 63

I've found this (and below) awhile back and interpreted as we ask questions about things such as whether the world is eternal or not, whether The Dhamma is true or not and so forth. The Buddha said that it's not more so than The Dhamma (it's not a "by the book" practice) but by applying the teachings to your life and seeing how it manifest from there. When we are targeted by an arrow and bleeding we ask questions of why and what but never how to get the arrow out. Also, there was one point where The Buddha says the answer is irrelevant.
Along the above lines, a lot of people go by reports, legends, traditions, scriptures, and so forth to determine the validity of their religious experiences but The Buddha (and other Dhammic traditions) focus on practice:

“Kālāmas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves
that, ‘These dhammas are unskillful; these dhammas are blameworthy;
these dhammas are criticized by the wise; these dhammas, when adopted
& carried out, lead to harm & to suffering’—then you should abandon
them.… When you know for yourselves that, ‘These dhammas are skillful;
these dhammas are blameless; these dhammas are praised by the wise;
these dhammas, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to
happiness’—then you should enter & remain in them.”
AN 3.66

What I've done was to answer the four noble truths-what is my suffering (then I list from there). What is the cause of my suffering (my interpretation of it). Then whatever sutta you read rather than ask if it's true or not see if it addresses the sufferings you listed. Also, see if you can find the hatred, delusion, or greed. Use The Sutta as a backbone to solve such sufferings. He also said, as I wrote down, "just as the great ocean slants and doesn't drop abruptly so to gain final knowledge and training is a gradual process" (AN 8.19).
You'll only know if you apply it. Also, things such as rebirth may throw one off like me when those teachings aren't familiar. I'd say with anything keep an open mind. Rebirth is literal, I believe. However, I think a lot of cosmology such as talks with demons etc are metaphorical. Don't let it trip you up though.
Add... Dhammatalks, SuttaCentral, and Accesstoinsight have different numberings for the same suttas. So, you can cross reference.

Just came across this from Ajahn Jayasāro. Not sure that it adds anything new to what's already been written, but I like how he puts things:

Many of the Buddha's teaching can be put to the test of experience
quite easily. It goes not take long to determine for ourselves whether
keeping the five precepts does, in fact, increase the level of safety
and trust in our family and community, and whether it fosters
self-respect and freedom from guilt and remorse. We can observe
without difficulty all the various ways that giving without desire for
reward brings joy into our lives. We can see clearly how mindfulness
practice enhances the quality of our mind and relationships.
But there are many teachings that we are, as yet, unable to prove or
disprove. Teachings about rebirth and other realms of existence are
obvious examples. In such cases, how should we hold the teachings ? I
would suggest that we do so with a deep trust in the great wisdom of
the Buddha. The more we observe how his teachings that we are able to
test for ourselves are always, without exception, correct, the more
confidence we can place in the teachings that we cannot, as yet,
verify.
We certainly do not claim something must be true simply because our
teacher says it to be so. We do, however, assert confidence in his
words based upon all our experience thus far of taking him as our
refuge and guide on life's bumpy road.
Ajahn Jayasāro 24/1/23


text:
Reunion with the loved one after death and in next life
My spiritual bonding and connection are very strong with my lovely mother who has passed away. We both have tremendous love for each other.

Can we be reunited again in the next life? Can she be born as my daughter/son & Can I be born as her son/daughter again?
After my death and before the new birth, can I get to meet and talk with my mom (as the Tibetan book of the dead and many NDEs suggest you can meet the loved one after death)

Your first question is answered by the following suttas.

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. A being who has not been your mother at
one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been
your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your
daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.
"Why is that? 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. Long have
you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
released."
SN 15.14-19

The Jataka Tales, such as the Katthahari Jātaka & Dasaratha Jātaka, report the Buddha's family members were also family members in past lives; who were reunited as family members in their future lives.

I feel hesitant writing this. First of all, you are lucky to have had a loving mother.
But please remember, the love that you have for her arose somewhere in time and thus is prone to decay and dissipation. It is a formation (sankhara) ,and like all formations, is ultimately impermanent, unsatisfying and devoid of self. I understand that it may be very strong such that it seems permanent to you right now, and the most beautiful and the most important thing ever.
If you can make yourself see clearly in the present moment the arising and the changing of this love towards your mother, you may see the 3 marks in it and get free from it. This is much easier said than done and I myself am in the same situation as you, but please let's have faith that it will happen slowly but surely. See it this way: if your mother could/can see clearly, she would rather want you to be free of craving/suffering than to be born as her son again.
Hope that wasn't too harsh and hope it helped. Be well


text:
Conversions and former bad deeds
I have read that obedience to the five precepts at least guarantees that practitioners will not fall back into the lower worlds (animal world, wandering spirit world, and hell world) when they are reborn after the present life.
So I was wondering if the conversion to Buddhism, the taking of refuge and the beginning to follow the five precepts, "cleansed" the old bad deeds, a bit like baptism among Christians?
Does a person who has violated the five precepts, for example by killing or stealing at the beginning of his life, and then halfway through his life until his death starts following the five precepts, still go to hell? Is he definitely condemned to be reborn in hell for his offense?

The following sutta quote shows that it can be in any order. There's no automatic cleansing of past bad deeds after taking triple refuge and the vow of the precepts.

"Now, Ānanda, in the case of the person who takes life... & holds
wrong view and, with the breakup of the body, after death, reappears
in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell:
Either earlier he performed evil action that is to be felt as painful,
or later he performed evil action that is to be felt as painful, or at
the time of death he adopted & carried out wrong view. Because of
that, with the breakup of the body, after death, he reappears in a
plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. And as
for the results of taking life... holding wrong view, he will feel
them either right here & now, or in the next [lifetime], or following
that.
"In the case of the person who takes life... & holds wrong view [yet],
with the breakup of the body, after death, reappears in a good
destination, a heavenly world: Either earlier he performed fine action
that is to be felt as pleasant, or later he performed fine action that
is to be felt as pleasant, or at the time of death he adopted &
carried out right view. Because of that, with the breakup of the body,
after death, he reappears in a good destination, a heavenly world. But
as for the results of taking life... holding wrong view, he will feel
them either right here & now, or in the next [lifetime], or following
that.
"In the case of the person who abstains from taking life... & holds
right view and, with the breakup of the body, after death, reappears
in a good destination, a heavenly world: either earlier he performed
fine action that is to be felt as pleasant, or later he performed fine
action that is to be felt as pleasant, or at the time of death he
adopted & carried out right view. Because of that, with the breakup of
the body, after death, he reappears in a good destination, a heavenly
world. And as for the results of abstaining from taking life...
holding right view, he will feel them either right here & now, or in
the next [lifetime], or following that."
"In the case of the person who abstains from taking life... & holds
right view [yet] with the breakup of the body, after death, reappears
in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell:
Either earlier he performed evil action that is to be felt as painful,
or later he performed evil action that is to be felt as painful, or at
the time of death he adopted & carried out wrong view. Because of
that, with the breakup of the body, after death, he reappears in a
plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. But as
for the results of abstaining from taking life... holding right view,
he will feel them either right here & now, or in the next [lifetime],
or following that.
MN 136

However, the suttas do speak of stream entry as the point after which one definitely does not go to lower worlds.

Someone who understands and sees these principles is called a
stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for
awakening.”
SN 25.1

Based on the Dharma Sermons I've listened so far. Obedience to 5 Precepts does not guarantee that person won't be born in one of the 4 Hells. It also doesn't guarantee the next life as a Human, Deva or Brahma too.
Attaining Sowan (Sotapanna) — 1st stage of awakening — by listening to Niravana Dhamma is THE only minimum guaranteed way to stop being born in one of the 4 Hells.
Because that's when you have beat the biggest Misdeed — Pure Delusion.
There are cases where people have been born in hell after obeying 5 precepts their whole life. As well as people who were born as Deva, Human even after doing many misdeeds.
Anyone below the Sowan Stage has a huge potential to be born in Hell even if they do good things as considered by the society. There is a lot to understand before realizing how a person go to hell, how a human life is formed etc. But all that is available in Tripitakaya.
Converting to Buddhism and following Buddhist Practices as a lay follower will cleanse your Bad Karma, Misdeeds by the amount you follow these things. However, you can't neutralize all your Karma, Misdeeds without attaining Arahat stage.
It doesn't matter if you killed people in the past, just following 5 precepts won't save you from Hell. Attaining Sowan stage is the only guaranteed way.
Angulimala is a person who killed so many people before attaining Arahat stage. He didn't go to hell with all those murders. He achieved Nibbana at the end.
If you have done bad stuff in the past, acknowledge that. Then focus on following Buddhist practices such as Daily Gatha, Pirith, Sutra Chanting. Listening to Nirvana Dhamma and Meditation to make your life better. This will save you from a ton of suffering. Not just this life. BUT every life that comes next.
That's the power of Buddha Dharma. You'll gain the good benefits until you attain Nibbana one day! Hope this answer helps you.


text:
Ritual in buddhism (preferably theravada) for lay people
Perhaps ritual isnt the right word but hopefully I can explain. So I am attracted to orthodox Christianity and its culture but I dont believe any of it. I like its fasting ritual many of its holidays, its worship and etc. and being in the west its easy to find like minded people to make that a part of my life or rather part of my practice. Buddhism by oneself is basically reading suttas and meditation since there is no local sangha but I find I would like to integrate more in my life so I can inundate my existance around buddhism without monasticism. I cant become a monk I have a wife and children. Is there anything like a Buddhist lifestyle beyond the 5 precepts for laypeople to follow to make it more "holy"?

There is Uposatha, a day of observance and an opportunity for increased practice. Lay people take on extra precepts to live more closely to the life of an arahant. Uposatha is typically observed based on the lunar calendar so at least twice a month on the new moon and full moon. Some people observe Uposatha more frequently. Suttas AN 8.41, AN 3.70, and AN 10.46 are about Uposatha.
Ideally you take the eight precepts from a monk. This could be done online. If that isn't possible, read the eight precepts out loud to yourself the morning of uposatha. Then the morning after uposatha, read the five precepts out loud to yourself. This replaces the eight.
An explanation of the eight precepts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uposatha

Holly buddhist life starts with Uposatha-Sila (8), and not only many many monks, even the Sublime Buddha, had wife, child, and often more to give up than common men. There is less holly in common life while going after sensual pleasures and gains of own kind, or?

I think those who stay in Theravada countries (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar) could give better info. I don't.
However, as far as I know there are the following events or rituals for lay persons:

Ceremony to undertake the 5 precepts and take the 3 refuges, administered by a monk
Uposatha every new moon and full moon at least, where the 8 precepts are followed
Daily chanting of various verses like the 3 refuges
Daily short periods of meditation or study of scripture
Giving alms to monks who are on their alms round, or giving them food in the monastery
Charity to the monastery
Giving the gift of a robe at the Kathina Festival
Vesak Day festival at the temple
Getting a monk to chant or bless, for various reasons like moving into a new home or getting married

Maybe there are more, but I don't know these very well.

As Anāthapiṇḍika the householder lay deathly ill, he asked Sariputta and Ānanda about how to train:

MN143:4.9: I’m not keeping well, Master Sāriputta, I’m not alright. The pain is terrible and growing, not fading, its growing, not its fading, is evident.”
MN143:5.1: “That’s why, householder, you should train like this:
MN143:5.2: ‘I shall not grasp the eye, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the eye.’
(omitted for brevity...)

Astounded at this teaching, Anāthapiṇḍika wept and said:

MN143:15.1: When he said this, Anāthapiṇḍika cried and burst out in tears.
MN143:15.2: Venerable Ānanda said to him,
MN143:15.3: “Are you failing, householder? Are you fading, householder?”
MN143:15.4: “No, sir.
MN143:15.5: But for a long time I have paid homage to the Buddha and the esteemed mendicants.
MN143:15.6: Yet I have never before heard such a Dhamma talk.”
MN143:15.7: “Householder, it does not occur to us to teach such a Dhamma talk to white-clothed laypeople.
MN143:15.8: Rather, we teach like this to those gone forth.”

Householder Anāthapiṇḍika then implored:

MN143:15.9: “Well then, Master Sāriputta, let it occur to you to teach such a Dhamma talk to white-clothed laypeople as well!
MN143:15.10: There are gentlemen with little dust in their eyes. They’re in decline because they haven’t heard the teaching.
MN143:15.11: There will be those who understand the teaching!”

So if one seeks more than Buddhist rituals, then perhaps MN143 may be of interest.

I actually asked myself the same question. However, in my case I wasn't raised christian. I was catholic for four years of my adult life and left since I never been raised to believe there was a creator (and any religion that included one). But, like you, I really do like the rituals involved which are absent since I don't live close to a monastery either.
This will be a bit long, but here is what I've done.
My post comes from this insight: Gradual Instruction (Accesstoinsight)

Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual
inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the
same way this Doctrine and Discipline (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual
training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, with a
penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch. -Ud 5.5

The Buddha originally taught to monks before layman. So, majority of his teachings are either spoken by The Buddha himself or one of his disciplines-Ananda, Sariputra, and so forth. The first of the gradual training is practicing generosity.

I started off with practice in generosity by keeping different smaller suttas in mind. For example, if I want to give to someone less fortunate (we have a lot of people who are here), then I would think of this:

"He who himself enjoys delicious things but gives to others what is
not delicious is a donor who is a slave to the gifts he gives. He who
gives things of the same quality as he himself enjoys is one who is
like a friend of the gift. He who satisfies himself with whatever he
can get but gives delicacies to others is a lordly giver, a senior and
a master of the gifts given (On Dana I can't find the sutta
reference)."

I ask: Am I giving I asked myself-am I being a slave to this gift (or intention), a friend to it, or a lordly giver? If I'm the first two, I don't give charity. If I'm the latter normally I feel at peace. Of course if you only have 100 for the rest of the month and you give 99, it serves its purpose but then it's not practical. So best not give then give half heartedly.
So you can start with generosity-doing things for others and yourself (don't forget) that develop wholesome qualities of body, speech, and mind. Also, be mindful that your intentions count as well. So, if you say thank you but in your head you don't mean it, it doesn't "count." I also read from a commentary that many western buddhists (or I'll rather say those unfamiliar to Buddhism westerner or not) neglect the need of merit. Generosity increases our merit. Increasing our merit leads to better rebirth eventually leading to wisdom and end of suffering.
The idea is when your main goal is to have peace of mind, clarity, and wisdom before you die. The point is to stop rebirth. The idea in the first part is to develop serenity of mind through practice of generosity and discipline. And when one finally gets to work with a monastic and good meditation work into wisdom such as knowledge of the four noble truths and so forth.

Another thing I do is, of course, meditation. However, it doesn't need to be just sitting and breathing. You can start off with loving kindness meditation or better yet, with every generous deed you do, reflect on it in your meditation and from that peace feeling give love and kindness to yourself and others. Watching Dhamma talks on it helps a lot.

The Buddha also says that layman would find it highly beneficial, if not should, take time out on the full moon (new moon, and half moons) to follow the Uposatha Observance.

What I do, instead of doing all eight precepts at once, I pick one to do and work from there. For example, I do five minute meditations in the morning. On full moon days I'll attempt to do an hour (it worked, actually). I'll try to not eat after 12 but for some reason the computer screen pulls me so I haven't found out how to drop that for the day especially since I don't work at the moment.

Another thing you can do, from a study perspective, is to get a notebook. I have the physical AN book (and would like to get all the nikayas) and started from the first sutta, summarize it, and then right an application or what I can do during the day based on that sutta. The only downfall with that is all the suttas pretty much end up saying the same thing, so getting different perspectives and cross referencing helps.

Lastly, get to know The Buddha. I know we can give respect to The Buddha, Dhamma,and Sangha, but what does that actually mean?

Read AN 3:39 on why and how The Buddha went into homelessness and you can also read his first discourse. I watched this Dhamma Talk on YouTube The Life of the Buddha a week ago, it was excellent. Food for thought.
Try to relate to The Buddha. List some of your sufferings and link them to what may be causing them say greed, hatred, or ignorance. Then use The Dhamma as a guide to help with these things from the root.
As for actually doing all I mentioned above? It's a work in progress.

Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual
inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the
same way this Doctrine and Discipline (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual
training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, with a
penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch. -Ud 5.5

Side note: If you look up different "scriptural journal" ideas on YouTube and/or scriptural methods of study (say SOAP method) you can translate these ideas and methods into study of the Dhamma. I do this and try to get the overall theme unless they are focused on scripture verse study itself more so than organization and planning.
That, and I didn't go back to completely edit all of this since I was back and forth and all. I usually go back and edit if I see something pop out.


text:
When was *sila* first interpreted/translated as ethics?
I am curious about the idea of calling sila (all precepts and vows) as ethics. When did this translation appeared? Or who interpreted sila as ethics or something similar to ethics? This is not to say that it is incorrect or comprehensive, but ethics as a western category of thought has been used as an auxiliary concept to understand sila. Which scholar/s did this?

From the very little I know of history it was the Pali Text Society who made the earliest surviving translations into English and the earliest dictionary.
A copy of the PTS dictionary is online here -- https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/ -- though this seems to be the latest (2001) not the earliest (1874) version.
The dictionary's entry for sīla is here -- https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?page=713 -- "ethics" is a part of the definition but only a part.
I think that's normal:

That any word has no exact translation -- which is why people try to learn to understand the original word or language

That a translator tries the convey the sense of it by giving several 'related' English words.
Often the several words (in a dictionary definition) give a better or closer explanation than any one single-word translation, which is part of why a dictionary can be interesting. When translating a text the translator usually needs to choose single-word translation to make the result read like English -- so different translators might translate a text differently, etc.

I don't know "the western category of thought": I never studied it academically, so I can't comment on that. If instead you translated sīla as "virtue" or "moral conduct", I'd say those means approximately the same thing, to me they're near-synonyms.
The word exists in Sanskrit -- https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/shila -- I presume people began to translate that earlier than Pali, e.g. Thomas William Rhys Davids studied Sanskrit at a university in Germany, as a teenager.

A couple ideas to consider: (1) The volume of the teachings is such that they are probably sufficient to guide us to full liberation. The seeming absence of fully liberated beings in the world suggests mistranslation. (2) The intended meaning of terms can be more accurately ascertained by testing our hypotheses against the full contextualized usage of them by the Buddha. If the hypothesized meaning is inconsistent with the usage in a single instance, it is unlikely to be true and should be corrected to be consistent with all such usages. This might be a fun project to crowdsource.

Bit of a pedantic question I guess but morality, moral discipline, ethics, ethical conduct, these are all synonymous.
While in actual definition ethics is different from morality but the idea of the moral discipline, like not killing is a result on understanding ethics, and having ethics.
If one only does not kill simply because "Buddha said so" or "I practice the 5 precepts" or "I made a vow not to kill" that is just practising morality.
Being ethical, i.e having ethics that would not allow you to kill another being is a separate phenomena, and I would guess is the essential meaning of the moral discipline.
So the word ethics is better suited as a whole.
Still this is a triviality of semantics, understanding the concept is the more important thing.

Yes it’s trivial, but perhaps it’s the other way, morality is having concern (a conscience), while for example, following Buddha blindly for salvation is only an ethical framework...thus morality is more pure than ethics


text:
In sutta SN 40.9 and SN 41.7,what do they mean by "signless" immersion of the heart?
I'm still learning the Suttas to apply The Buddha's teachings to my life. I haven't read much about the jhanas (which I think the below is related to) so I ask.

What does it mean when The Buddha says "signless of the heart?"
How does this relate to nothingness or immersion of the heart?
What are "signs?"

Thank you.
SN 40.9 “They speak of this thing called the ‘signless immersion of the heart’. What is the signless immersion of the heart? It occurred to me: ‘It’s when a mendicant, not focusing on any signs, enters and remains in the signless immersion of the heart. This is called the signless immersion of the heart.’ (Excerpt) https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn40/sn40.009.wlsh.html
41.7 And what is the release of the heart through emptiness? It’s when a mendicant has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut, and reflects like this: ‘This is empty of a self or what belongs to a self.’ This is called the release of the heart through emptiness.
And what is the signless heart’s release? It’s when a mendicant, not focusing on any signs, enters and remains in the signless immersion of the heart. This is called the signless release of the heart.(Excerpt) https://suttacentral.net/sn41.7/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

Following audio explains the meditation on Cūḷasuññatasutta where animitta cetosamadhi (signless/themeless concentration) is explained at 45:40.
https://visuddhimagga.info/download.php?file=https://anaalaya.blob.core.windows.net/dhamma2019/M_E_CulaSunnataSutta_16_07_2019.mp3
Once you reach seventh jhana concentration (plane of nothingness) and if you are successful in understanding the impermanence of perception, then you can reach signless immersion of the heart (aka liberation due to wisdom - no sign of permanence). When you understand the perception to be void of self, you can reach release of the heart through emptiness. And when you understand perception is suffering then you reach the desireless abiding.
In Cūḷasuññatasutta the Buddha explains even these liberations are constructed, impermanent and subjected to cessation.

‘Even this signless immersion of the heart is produced by choices and
intentions.’ They understand: ‘But whatever is produced by choices and
intentions is impermanent and liable to cessation.’ Knowing and seeing
like this, their mind is freed from the defilements of sensuality,
desire to be reborn, and ignorance. When they’re freed, they know
they’re freed.

Therefore, Nibbana is where our aim should be. And for that, the practice or the development you need is the Noble Eight Fold Path.

Bhante Analayo writes in detail about signless concentration in Compassion and Emptiness in Early Buddhist Meditation. According to him, signless concentration is when nothing is perceived, but perception exists. This is not neither-perception-nor-non-perception because state has reduced perception while the signless has regular perception. I have not experienced either of those states so I'm going from what I've heard from others and inference.
Chapter Six (VI) Empty of Self is where he talks about the signless concentration. I cannot explain it better than Bhante Analayo.
Where to download his books for free, legally. https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/resources/offerings-analayo/publications/


text:
Dialogue between the Buddhist and Christian traditions: Is Christianity actually Buddhism behind the semantics and interpretations?

"I feel there is tremendous convergence and a potential for mutual enrichment through dialogue between the Buddhist and Christian traditions, especially in the areas of ethics and spiritual practice, such as the practices of compassion, love, meditation, and the enhancement of tolerance. I feel that this dialogue could go very far and reach a deep level of understanding. But when it comes to a philosophical or metaphysical dialogue, I feel that we must part company. The entire Buddhist worldview is based on a philosophical standpoint in which the central thought is the principle of interdependence, how all things and events come into being purely as a result of interactions between causes and conditions. Within that philosophical worldview it is almost impossible to have any room for an atemporal, eternal, absolute truth. Nor is it possible to accommodate the concept of a divine Creation. Similarly, for a Christian whose entire metaphysical worldview is based on a belief in the Creation and a Divine Creator, the idea that all things and events arise out of mere interaction between causes and conditions has no place within that worldview. So, in the realm of metaphysics, it becomes problematic at a certain point, and the two traditions must diverge (81-82).".

By The Christian Research Institute

If and when the two traditions don't diverge, is that necessarily problematic to Buddhism also?

If and when the two traditions don't diverge, is that necessarily problematic for all people?

Are Christian concepts pointing at the same things that Buddhism is pointing at but with different approaches?

How well does the Christian Research Institute understand Buddhism?

The article you're quoting from is here: The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus

The quote itself, i.e. which the article is quoting, is from the book The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus by H. H. the Dalai Lama.

Hi Lowbrow, I'm not sure I understand the questions. Perhaps you could add a sentence or two after each question to explain it. For example the first two questions, why or how might non-divergence be "problematic" in your opinion? And in the third question are you asking about e.g. the xenophobic or nationalist rhetoric used by Fascists; and how is that related to the quote, or to Christianity or Buddhism?

OK, thanks for your feedback

Oops, maybe I took a little too much poetic license? Idk...

"Are Christian concepts pointing at the same things that Buddhism is pointing at but with different approaches?"
I'd have to say no, but if one can see God as the personification of idappaccayatā or "this/that conditionality", which (IMO) is the fundamental principle or force of "life, the universe, and everything," then many of the things in the Christian texts start to make sense, and there is some overlap. But these are just my thoughts and I don't thing you'll find a "believer" that will agree with that interpretation of the Gospel (good story), or the so called "Old Testament."
And as far as convergence: Ven.Ṭhānissaro has noted, "All paths do not lead to the top of the mountain."

Since it's Martin Luther King Day in the US, let me start with one of his more famous quotes: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Had he been living in less politically charged times he'd have probably said that it bends towards 'The Good' (in the classic Platonic sense), but justice was a deep concern at that moment in history.
My point, though, is that when we discuss these issues we need to think about the arc of the moral universe. Every faith and every philosophy has the same trajectory and the same target — as difficult to define as that might be — converging in from different starting points. One who stands stolidly in the middle of a worldview looking out at others will see difference and conflict; one who 'looses the arrow' (so to speak) and follows the arc will find unity and peace. At a certain point constructs like 'Buddhism', 'Christianity', etc, evolve into something that is both, all, neither, and none.
Ritual and dogma are the source of difference and conflict.  But ritual and dogma are a cocoon, not an end in themselves. The question is whether one can see past that.

One bit of Christian dogma is, "No one comes to the Father except through me" -- I think that may be the bit I find hardest to translate into Buddhist terms, i.e. what's "the Father"? But apart from that, the lists of sins and of virtues for example are pretty similar in Christianity and in Buddhism.

@ChrisW: The idea that liberation can only be found through the Buddha dharma is cognate to the Christian saying, particularly if were take Jesus to be referring to his teachings (rather than himself), and think of the rest as meaning 'attaining salvation'. But, you know... Hermeneutics is the enemy of dogma.

@ChrisW that's why krsna is mara...god is one, and basically useless

@blue_ego I'm not saying it's useless. Given I think that Christian doctrine is theist (with "love God" being the first commandment) I was asking Ted how he could say it has the same target at Buddhism -- and the answer was that in both cases the target is "attaining salvation", so.


text:
Aren't ahirika and kukkucca contradictory defilements?
If I'm understanding correctly, kukkucca refers to the lack of guilt in the face of wrongdoing and ahirika translates to remorse or guilt. If that is the case, when someone does something bad he's trapped in defilement, either by feeling or by not feeling remorse. Am I missing something in translation?

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

Worry (kukkucca) is remorse, brooding, and repenting over evil acts
done in the past or good acts left undone.
Shame of evil (hiri) and fear of evil (ottappa) are the opposites
of the second and third unwholesome mental factors, already discussed.
Shamelessness of evil (ahirika) is lack of conscience, not as a
mysterious inner voice, but as an abhorrence towards evil.

Kukkucca is remorse or regret over wrongdoings in the past. It's not wholesome. You're meant to learn from your past mistakes then move on. You're not meant to cling to them.

“Mendicants, without giving up six things you can’t realize
perfection. What six? Dullness, drowsiness, restlessness, remorse
(kukkucca), lack of faith, and negligence. Without giving up these
six things you can’t realize perfection.
AN 6.66

Hiri is shame of future wrongdoing. Ottappa is fear of future wrongdoing. Both are wholesome.

..... so too, venerable sir, for one who has faith in wholesome
states, a sense of shame of wrongdoing (hiri), fear of wrongdoing
(ottappa), energy, and wisdom, whether day or night comes only
growth is to be expected in regard to wholesome states, not decline.
SN 16.7

Ahirika is lack of shame of future wrongdoing which is not wholesome. Ahirika is translated as "lack of conscience" below by Ven. Sujato. However, it is essentially the opposite of the shame of future wrongdoing, based on the same word hiri.

“Mendicants, without giving up six things you can’t realize the fruit
of non-return. What six? Lack of faith, lack of conscience (ahirika),
and lack of prudence;
laziness, unmindfulness, and witlessness. Without giving up these six
things you can’t realize the fruit of non-return.
AN 6.65

So kukkucca is about the past and ahirika is about the future.
We shouldn't cling to remorse over past evil deeds but we should have shame over committing future evil deeds.
It's about keeping the mind positive and joyful. To have joy, one must be free from remorse. In order to be free from remorse, we must learn from past wrongdoings and move on, while avoiding future wrongdoings.

"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."
AN 11.1

Why are you deleting my comment?

@blue_ego I deleted it: because I thought the question is clear enough; and instead of asking Namespace to explain it, an explanation could be given in an answer. This site is preferably not for "answering a question with another question" -- https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1920/254

@ChrisW Yes that is valid, but question is surely mangled

Ahirika is shamelessness, it's when you don't feel guilty about doing something morally wrong because in your mind your action is either not harmful or justified.
Uddhacca-kukkucca is anxiety one gets from overthinking and  trying to be 100% perfect. You are trying to be perfect but you are caught in between several factors and constraints, and no matter what you do, it seems like you will be at fault.
Ahirika is a "beginner's" defilement, characteristic of persons with little to no shila training (either the worldly training given by parents and school teachers, or religious ethics, or the Buddhist training). As person is trained by one of these, he or she develops a sense of Hiri-Otappa at some point, which is a kind of moral compass that guides one towards the good and away from the bad.
Uddhacca-kukkucca is an "advanced" fetter, characteristic of students taking their shila training very seriously and seeing faults even in the tiniest offenses. Developing u-k is generally good news, because it means the person will finally not turn the blind eye to many of the more subtle of their habitual issues, so there's finally a chance of making significant progress. However, the flip side of this perfectionistic approach to training is the uncomfortable state of worry and anxiety, a self-cultivated inner fear of doing something in a less than perfect way. That's uddhacca-kukkucca. In the Buddhist model of fetters it remains active all the way until the arahantship.
If you think about it, this fetter, along with the other advanced fetters like "immaterial rebirth desire" is what drives one onward through the progression of jhanas towards more and more refined states. So in a way it is helpful, it plays its role.

According to the Buddha, shame is one of the seven treasures. A shameless person is without a method of escape from their defilement. Having a healthy sense of shame provides an escape; therefore, shame is a treasure to guard (and develop).
See: Treasure - Dhana Sutta  (AN 7:6) and AN 7:7


text:
Who is the artist that painted the '9 Stages of Samatha Meditation' painting?
The following Tibetan Buddhist (thangka) painting is a visual representation of the 9 Stages (~11 stages) of Samatha meditation. Who painted it?

This is not really the place to ask such questions that a web search can find. This is a place to ask and inquire about the Buddhas/Buddhist teachings.

@Remyla what if a web search doesn't provide the author?  it's a nice work, too many colors imo, but whatever...it's fair game imo

This particular version seems to originate from this online store based in Nepal.


text:
Heart, mind, brain domination
What is effect of heart on mind in reality?
Is it the effect due to coziness felt across the walls of heart (similar to the one felt by a child sitting in the parent's lap) leading to the change in perception, can be bad (ill hearted), can be good(emotional), can be right(compassion).
Or
Is that effect due to the oxygen interchanged blood? Blood having usedup O2 usually accompanied with various deep rooted sankharas/emotions/pictures/previous-deeds and blood which got injected by fresh O2 has very low quanties of them.
This 2nd one seems little clearer and unveils some concepts like,"how come compassion around an arhat's body is so strong" at physical level.
Any Buddha's teaching/sutta in this meditation context.

It seems like, in both examples, you're referring to how the anatomy or physiology can be changed by Buddhist practices. Please could you confirm, deny and/or clarify?

It's far from away that. Instead of physiology (physical organs) change, discussion is on change in thoughts, decisions, perception.. mind. Currently this(me) meditator is not at the stage where these can be treated as dhatu or elements to make them appear like physical organs. Those 2 statements are not examples rather 2 perceivable points(both could be wrong, 1 could be right, ..?).


text:
What particular individuals have experienced Nibbana?
Please answer without reciting suttas. I hear often it said that one will neither confirm nor deny if they have.  If you haven't experienced it why would you not just say you haven't? It seems deceptive to me to not just come out and say "I have not" but instead lead people on being mysterious about it.
Straight direct question--
What particular living individuals have experienced Nibbana? Or are most likely to have?

This answer mentions "a small taste of nibbana" which implies that at least a taste (experience) might be within reach of almost anyone. See also "stream-winner" and the doctrine of a gradual enlightenment.

It is not mysterious, it is quite simple that it would bring no benefit from actually saying "I have experienced nibbana and am an arhant" How can you find this comment to be true, how can the arhant prove it to be true. All one can do is teach you the tools to experience the cessation and become an arhant yourself. Now mentioning you are a stream winner, sotapanna is useful, especially for the sangha as that would mean you no longer need "basic" advice. Anyone at sotapanna level and above can see this in you also. Only an arhant can see another arhant, so there is no benefit from claiming.

I hope you found an answer in the duplicate question that appeals to you. If not, please say so. In Buddhism, there are some restrictive & outdated rules around speaking about such things. It's not a secret, and should no longer be treated as if it is. You might like Shinzen Young's book, The Science of Enlightenment where he speaks openly about his enlightenment and that it is, in figurative terms, a real thing. Good luck.

I would be careful with people who claim to be enlightened. You often find they are extremely concerned with worldly concern.


text:
Did the Buddha cover colorblindness in his teachings?
Is "Racial color blindness" covered in the Buddha's teaching? What would be the closest Buddhist concept that covers it? Is there a scripture that teaches colorblindness?
Could it have originated from the Buddha's teaching, Christianity, both or somewhere else? Does anyone know what Thích Nhất Hạnh taught MLK about colorblindness?

Do you mean anti-racism? I closed this question as a duplicate assuming it's about racism. If it's not, I'll reopen it. Possibly duplicate of Buddhism and Racism.

Come on, don't close my gosh darn question down. It's not about racism. It's about colorblindness. A totally separate concept.

like why is your heart green?  like that of course i assume...

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

What is "colorblindness"? The biological condition of not being able to identify colors correctly? What do you mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness

@Remyla Yes that's the normal meaning. Given that the OP is asking about MLK etc., ruben2020 was asking Lowbrow whether that's meant literally/biologically, or instead meant metaphorically/sociologically -- e.g. something like the second definition here i.e. "treating all people the same regardless of race".

@ ruben2020 It means not treating someone good or bad just because they are a different color.

It represents our heart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_color_blindness

The question about "the origin of color blindness" -- i.e. about the history of the US Supreme Court decisions, and whether they could have originated from religious doctrines -- might be askable on https://law.stackexchange.com/ or https://history.stackexchange.com/

From racial color blindness (wikipedia):

A color-blind racial ideology can be defined as holding the belief
that an individual's race or ethnicity should not influence how that
individual is treated in society. This is further divided into two
dimensions, color evasion and power evasion. Color evasion is the
belief that people should not be treated differently on the basis of
their color, while power evasion posits that systemic advantage based
on color should have no influence on what people can accomplish, and
accomplishments are instead based solely on one's own work
performance.

This sutta quote still covers it best, I feel:

“Don’t ask about birth, ask about conduct;
for any kindling can kindle a flame.
A steadfast sage, even though from a low class family,
is a thoroughbred checked by conscience.
SN 7.9

Any kindling, any piece of wood, can be used to kindle a flame.
Don't discriminate the type of wood or kindling.
Essentially color blindness.

The Buddha was anti-caste and pro-feminism. Keep in mind this is still limited by the world of India 2600 years ago. The caste system is comparable to racism.
When someone ordained, their caste as a lay person became irrelevant. A monk who was a brahmin (priestly caste) and a monk who was a worker, were treated the same.
MN 93 - The Buddha critiquing the caste system.
If a woman/girl had been married and wanted to ordain, they could become a full monk (bhikkhuni) in two years. So, a formerly married girl as young as 12 could become a novice monk and then at 14, she could become a full female monk (bhikkhuni). But people had to be at least 20 years old to become a full male monk (bhikkhu).