text:
Is buddha nature active?
Is Buddha nature active or passive?
Would anyone say that enlightenment means we can suffer (frustration) in an active way?

What do you mean by 'active' and 'passive'?

oh that's a good question... a passive suffering would be feeling bad, an active suffering would i guess be feeling bad but feeling also like you're doing something about it. oh i guess that's a little atmanistic .

It could be the two simultaneously - paradoxes. But "active" or "passive" in relation to what?

oh another good question. suffering, by that our own or someone elses. i guess ? !

The Buddha nature is neither active, nor passive, nor both, nor neither.  :-)

It depends on who perceives it, depends on what's being talked about, and it can be the both at the same time.
Eastern philosophy and spirituality is very different from our western logic. For us, it must be A or not A, for them it can be A and not A at the same time. In Shunryu Suzuki's "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind" there is a handful of paradoxes.
Coming back to the question, to the western mindset it seems that being active is good and being passive is bad. But it wouldn't be correct to assert that Buddhism is active just to say that it is good. So I prefer to say that enlightenment isn't one nor another. Or, in mystical terms, it is a balance between active and passive energies.
Meditation can look like a very passive practice, since you stay still, you stop moving, you stop talking, you calm down thinking and other mind processes. Then you stay there passive to noise, to itches, to mosquitoes, to pain, to chatter in the mind, to boredom, and so on.
Now, if you look from another perspective, meditation is very active. Nowadays people fill their days with activities, there is always something to do avoid tedium. Usually when someone starts meditating, it requires a great amount of effort to not move and to calm down the thoughts. People usually need to actively practice meditation to achieve subtler states of mind.
You will never listen someone saying something like "There was nothing to do and I was bored and then I suddenly realized that I was meditating."
Now, in enlightenment the underlying constant existential suffering isn't produced. It isn't fed, as if the ground of mind wasn't fertile for growing suffering. So if it doesn't exist, there can't be a relation of passivity or activity to it.
If you take mundane suffering such as physical pain or emotional pain, it keeps happening, but there won't be a "me" that feels pain. But there is just pain. You could say that enlightenment is passive because there is just a stream of phenomena that flows and between these phenomena there is pain. You could also say that enlightenment is active because there is complete presence and clear awareness of all phenomena that emerges, and nothing we judge as bad could produce the slightest suffering.
And finally, "active" and "passive" are just concepts. If you are taking the path to enlightenment, instead of trying to define it take the path to get there. And if you are just trying to define it, be warned that words and thoughts are too limited for this task.

Is the redness of an apple an active or passive principle? The true nature of the apple is that it has no absolute colour to be either active or passive, the perception of colour being born in interdependence, not of the apple itself, and as this is its true nature, is it an active or passive nature?
Some questions are slippery and invalid. Does a dog have Buddha nature?


text:
Kamma and (psychiatric) delusions / madness
if I am mad and my action would not have been performed if not for loss of reality (i.e. psychosis) will I still bear its -ve fruit?
As a Buddhist or otherwise.
Please answer sensitively :)

"The Pali term Karma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as Karma"
You have to look at the action (good or bad) and the  consequence( Kamma & vipaka). whether one has a sound mind or unsound mind doesn't matter, without intention there is no action.
Even a person suffering from psychosis uses his mind to do things,  so without thoughts nothing good or bad  happens( the thoughts may be abnormal,incomplete,unclear or confusing)  ,but a person with psychosis may not feel the consequences like a normal person ,so the magnitude of suffering may differ for the same actions committed by different people.

I'm not sure I agree with jathin's answer. There was a case in my country a few years ago, where someone on a bus cut off someone else's head. They did that, because they thought that they were sitting next to a devil. The criminal justice trial found them "not guilty of murder by reason of diminished responsibility", they were remanded for psychiatric care, and later released (with anti-psychotic medication).
I'm not sure I know about kamma but I think that intention follows from view, and if your view is psychotic (e.g. if you think you're sitting next to a devil) then I'm not sure.
I slightly doubt whether Buddhism would recommend you kill even a "devil" if you meet one: but still.
I think that the Vinaya (see page 74 through 86) identifies what constitutes murder:

Object: the victim must have been human
Intention and perception: the assailant must have intended to cause death
Effort: the assailant must have done something to cause death
Result: the victim had to actually die as a result

I'm not sure whether the Vinaya rule is the same as "kamma", but I'd argue that psychosis may prevent intention and/or perception.
In my country, an adult who is psychotic may be given a court-appointed legal guardian -- that is, if they're unable to make informed decisions, if they cannot give informed consent, because they are:

Unable to understand the choices available to them
Unable to understand the likely consequences of each choice.

The first story of the Dhammapada is about someone who couldn't see with their eyes. Maybe someone with psychosis cannot properly see with their mind (and cannot form criminal intent).

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
How common is stream entry?
Lots of questions on stream entry here.
I have practiced Mahayana Buddhism without a huge success - for sure. But still, I was of the opinion that such attainment as stream entry was rare in the extreme.
Perhaps 1/1000 monks, and much less even in the devout laity.
How common is it? I have a somewhat devout Theravadin friend, is he a saint :o !

my working is pretty simple: self enlightenment is 1,000,000, a small amount of people have that seed. the rest p much have the arhat seed. suppose that a monk is half as saintly as a self enlightened being. that makes 1,000. laity 100,000... my presentation is fuzzy but yeah...

hmmm  here is a free book. it has about 40+ sutta of a stream enterer (none-contradict each other whatsoever.  We buddhists want to know if we have achieved this level of dharma.
Buddha allowed us to proclaim ourselves so and here is the tool.
http://watnapahpong.com/static_media/Sotapanna_Handbook_English_version_30.pdf
I remember a sutta from pali cannon where this rich merchant invited buddha to receive meal at his mansion in a week.  later a king or prince desperately wanted buddha to come eat at his place on the same day (i dont recall why).  Buddha said he couldnt change the reservation without consent from this merchant because he invited him first.  So buddha sent ven Moggallana to this merchant to see what he would think about moving the reservation to a week later.  the marchant would agree if ven Moggallana  could confirm 4 (or maybe 5) things  1) would he still be alive ?  answer was yes.  2) would buddha still be alive? yes. 3) would he still have his wealth? yes.  4) would he still have the unshakable confidence in buddha?  ven Moggallana did not answer the last question citing that this was something the merchant had the ability to answer that himself.   finally he agreed to move the reservation to a week later.   Point is, a confidence in buddha, dharma, sangha is one characteristic of a stream enterer.  And Buddha was explicit that only him and yourself can make such a claim.
How common is it?  Buddha said in one sutta, plenty. not 10, 100, 1000+ as long as 8 fold path is practiced, world is not going to be absent of an arayan (those who is a stream enterer or higher. perfectly good word ruined by Nazi).  also compare to another sutta, he compared dust on his finger tips to the entire earth as reference to numbers of Arayans compare to all other beings (seen and unseen) so the ratio would be large!
read the book and ask yourself.  only you can proclaim yourself ..

oh of course i didn't mean it about individuals !! metta :)

except my friend hahaha : !!! :

ha ha  .. another characteristic of stream enterer i found not in that book.  stream enterers never use words as spear or knife to attack or harm others no matter how angry he gets. my personal opinion, plenty of sotapanna out there.  if we are facing in the right direction, and start taking that first step, we will reach our destination one day (hopefully shorter than 7 lives time).  I am a thevarada buddhist .  i dont know much about mahayana teaching at all :-(  i assume 4 noble truths and 8 fold paths are common accross the board?

every tradition i think uses them, but in different ways !

As long as there are people who practice the 4 foundation of mindfullness there will be a people who have attainment some stage of sainthood.
There are only a few who have achieved it is because the practice has reduced. Many call them selves Buddhist but do not practice the 4 foundation of mindfullness.
So you have to practice it in the right way then success will follow. But again in bussy modern times the time and temperament to devote a lot of time to practice is lacking.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Time in Buddhism
I read a couple of books on time, yet they all seemed somewhat incomplete, as if it was something simply tagged onto the rebirth / enlightenment doctrine.
How important is time in Buddhism, not simple "impermanence" but how impermanence is housed. Or is there nothing to time beyond impermanence?
I saw on philosophy stackexchange, something about this, but I'm getting quite a bad reputation there... Do "people" experience time? Is an experience of time actual time?
Because I think that if so, that's where the biases and make believe of comtemporary science, collapses !!
Thank you so much :)

This is 3 questions with a question mark, implied that people are "people", science is biased and make believe and you're not using the word time in the colloquial sense. Maybe you could narrow your question and define your use of the word time? Also Buddhism isn't physics, it's not about working out time and space, it is interested in experience, e.g. should we focus our attention on the present vs the non-present. I think the Buddha could care less about what time really was (the 4th dimension?)

ok i think you read a lot into my question that wasn't there e.g. "buddhism isn't physics" but thanks for commenting

You might be interested in this answer. Though apparently about Karma, it is heavily involved with ideas about the perception of time and the nature and longevity of the perceiver. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5288/is-it-me-or-someone-else-paying-karma-for-my-sins

There are two Pali words that seem relevant to this question:

Kalika meaning "related to time"
Akalika meaning "not related to time"

There's a definition of the words here in this 'glossology': Akalika --
Timelessness, A synonym for Arahantship, An attribute of the Dhamma
It suggests two meanings for kalika:

Two events can be said to kalika when they are successive, and do not happen at the same time: for example, the in-breath and the out-breath
Also (etymologically) the track of scat left by an animal (one week old, two days old, one day old, etc.)

There's some question about what akalika means (because akalika is supposed to be an attribute of Dharma).
Some suggest it means timeless:

This practice is said to be akaliko — timeless. The Buddha's teachings are timeless.

Later in the same paragraph he clarifies that by "timeless" he means "always" (i.e. continuously and not just continually):

The fact that there are no developments in our practice is because we have times. The Buddha says, "timeless." We say there are times. Our times are more than many. Time for this, time for that, times for walking, times for sitting, times for sleeping, times for eating, times for talking — there are lots of them. Our life turns into nothing but times. So now let's try practicing in a way that it becomes timeless. The truth will then appear in our minds — each and every one of us.

A different suggestion is that akalika might mean "true in all three times (past, present and future)".
A final suggestion is that it means "immediately"; or even better, that it means "without delay".

hi ChrisW, i wondered if you felt that everything in time is kalika, that akalika is not conditioned? for me this would v important, implying that the conditioned has no absolute end - no end that exists independent of its cognition.

The reason that you don't see a lot of dialogue about time is that it is a difficult subject to get right at the best of times, and not really necessary to liberation. It might be considered nothing more than a cosmological inquiry, something to be avoided in favor of practice. However...
All that which is compounded, conditioned, dependently arisen and empty is impermanent, temporary, an apparition, ephemeral, gone already, in fact never here at all. Time is empty, it is conditioned, compounded, ultimately unreal. It cannot be truly grasped. Nagarjuna tackles time in chapter 19 of his Mulamadyamakakarika, aka the Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.
He begins with a demonstration that it is absurd to postulate the true existence of an actual past, present and future, asserting that these things exist in name only, as concepts only. The arguments he makes here are complicated, rely on previous chapters of his book, and concern causality, interdependence and the nature of how things arise, and the full argument is beyond the scope of a comment thread. Essentially, however, an existence with a true past, future, and present moment that actually exist is seen as a mere concept, and is therefore unreal. Common sense time is unreal. This realized wisdom has the effect of releasing us from the anxiety of the pressing urgency of time.
Since time as past, present, and future is ultimately unreal, we move on to time as a fleeting flow vs time as something that can exist in "a singular moment" of time. This is also demonstrated to be lacking of true existence. Continuously fleeting time cannot be grasped, and if a moment of time is singled out, it ceases to "be" time. Time is ungraspable. This realized wisdom has the effect of releasing us from grasping and clinging at time.
Finally, he argues against a self-existing time, showing time as being compounded. In his study on the Mulamadyamakakarika Jay Garfield concludes that

Nagarjuna points out that with no entities to be temporally related,
  there is no time. That is, the only mode of existence that time has is
  as a set of relations among empirical phenomena. Apart from
  those phenomena and those relations, there is no time. But that
  means that, given the lack of inherent existence of phenomena,
  there can be no inherent existence of time. Time is thus merely a
  dependent set of relations, not an entity in its own right, and
  certainly not the inherently existent vessel of existence it might
  appear to be.

Emphasis added was mine, as it pertains directly to your question. The effect of this realized wisdom is to release us from the erroneous notion of an absolute, true existence of time, this eases grasping at true existence. It shows us that time is relational, is tied to space and objects, and that since no true objects have absolute existence, neither does time. It is just another phenomena in flux.
A study of this chapter can be found here, with an emphasis that what Nagarjuna denies is absolute time, or an independently existing time.
Nagarjuna, a founder of Middle Way, Mahayana philosophy, shows us that the only way to consider time is as empty, relative time that is dependent on other phenomena to exist at all, and, like all other phenomena, is always in flux. It conventionally is a co-dependently arisen phenomena, and therefore ultimately is unreal, that is to say cannot be truly found when looked for. This is how time is actually experienced. Unreal, ungraspable, empty.
Finally, impermanence is not, in any way, a thing that is housed. It is a characteristic of all phenomena. To say that it is housed is erroneous, the apparent objects that are marked by impermanence are not even seen as having self-existence, so no true object at the end of the day outside of the concept of one. So there is, ultimately, no object to hold the characteristic, only the perception of non-permanence.

Time is relative, has no absolute existence and is dependent on space and objects, is precisely what is described in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which was experimentally proven in 1919.

M'm, quantum Buddha!!

a pretty good answer. i was more interested in philosophy than what can be "truly found when looked for" but i'm sure it'll be useful for someone :)

Not sure what you're looking for, this is pretty much the extent ot the philosophical exploration of time in BUddhist thought, AFAIK. Buddhism does not concern itself with mere mental meanderings, it looks to realty to discover the true nature of a thing, in this case time.


text:
The difference between a great man and an enlightening being
Hope that my question is pertinent here :) ?
Can anyone here help me think about the difference between the two :) ?

An enlightened being is a great man.
A great man is not always an enlightened being.


text:
What is suchness (esp in Tendai or Soto)
In this thread I asked about active and passive suffering.
But I'm not quite sure what I mean.
It may help to know what suchenss is? I know it translates to "as it is"... so is that impermanence? Or something more subtle ?
Thanks!

of course how it is now isn't how it will always be. so how can you find an immutable suchness? or is the principle of suchness always changing ?

As far as I can tell so far, this is a common mahayana theme about something that is ineffable, something impossible to put to words. What is the world? It is what it is, which isn't helpful, so you have to understand it though directly felt wisdom. But I'm not a Tendai expert.

Suchness means there is no construing. Kalaka Sutta may be useful to know the meaning of "such":
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html

What does Suchness mean when we say "as it is"?
It comes from the fact that whatever we see, is due to the eye perceiving an object and the mind creating an image of the object. If the eye is defective, say colour blind, then the appearance of the object in the mind is different from that for a normal eye.
Even though if we have normal eyes, the object we see is still created by the mind. So what difference is it from what we sometimes see in dreams?
We can only perceived that which is created by the mind and not really know the essence of the objects out there in the world - "as it is" or suchness is the name given to these objects which are inexpressible. Images, sounds, texture, scents and tastes are all we know through the mind.
Moreover dogs perceive the world differently from us so do other beings.
That's my understanding from the Theravada tradition.


text:
The experience of silence
Is there anything out there in the zen tradition about whether "silence" (do I mean this metaphorically) is to be embraced in meditation?

Well, there's the Flower Sermon isn't there?

looking for more contemporary stuff, but thanks anyway :)

If you are coming at this from a Zen perspective, I wouldn't use the word "silence" so much as "emptiness" or mu-shin.  And I wouldn't say that the word "embraced" quite gets at what you need to be doing.  Emptiness is embraced, but there is also an element of investigation.  One should become both "one with" mu-shin while looking deeply into it.
I think it's important to understand, however, that this sort of investigation is not a preliminary practice.  The mind has to be quieted and the concentration developed to a certain extent before one has an experience of that emptiness.  Once it is beheld, it should then be stabilized.  This can be done through various techniques - most famously the mu koan.  If you are beginning your meditation practice, you are better off just watching the breath.  This will help lay a foundation for later investigation.

hm ok i'm just starting out with zazen so...

Then count those breaths!  :-)

yep yep ... :)  !


text:
The will, and rebirth
This question made me want to explain my belief / theory of rebirth.
Does anyone ever at all even somewhat suggest that when we are "reborn" we do not inhabit the new birth in the sense of controlling or willing its actions. That (in a way UNLIKE being "reborn" into our future selves before death) people can only ever be responsible for e.g. their enlightenment - in this life?
Or is there not such a profound difference between life now (- and just now) opposed to life after death ?

sort of: a new life arises but it becomes [bhava] it isn't formed [sankhara]  ???

Hard to tell what question is being asked here. This feels a lot like, "Here is my opinion, do you agree?"

@Anthony hey sorry, you're pretty much right... sorry Anthony

I'm not sure how other people attempted to answer this question. I cannot understand it. Could you rephrase in simpler language?

Not according to U Dhammaratana's commentary on the Visuddhimaga... There it is said:

It could be said that they [kamma-bhava and sankhara] are two
  different ways of sayin the same thing

Kamma-bhava is what recreates the next rebirth. Sankhara is kamma-bhava considered without the "associated mental states".
I think I see no way round this, besides questioning Buddhaghosa or the accuracy of the commentary. Unless sankhara is empty in a different way to kamma-bhava :/

Isn't emptiness a Mahayana doctrine? If I understand correctly, Buddhaghosa lived and wrote entirely in a Theravada context.

When 'jati' ('birth') occurs via Dependent Origination, the 'will' (intention -cetana) is a contributory condition but not 'control'. That the (ignorant) 'will' generates 'birth' is due to 'ignorance' (avicca) therefore, when ignorance is functioning, 'control' cannot exist.
Therefore, it is correct to suggest that when there is 'birth' ('jati') or 'new birth', there is no sense of controlling actions. People can only ever be responsible for their enlightenment because their unwholesome actions are always controlled & created by ignorance (rather than by their 'self').
This is why enlightenment generates metta, equinimity & forgiveness.


text:
The alayavijnana and emptiness
I asked a question about rebirth without new awareness, only karmic conditioning. According to the doctrine of the Nidanas, I answered my question saying that:

Kamma-bhava [bhava being the 10th nidana] is what recreates the next rebirth. Sankhara [2nd nidana] is
  kamma-bhava considered without the "associated mental states".

Could it be said then that, given the fact of emptiness, kamma-bhava is empty but sankhara can only be said to be selfless OR empty?
Then it seems to me that we would have "rebirth without new awareness, only karmic conditioning", because what generates the next birth is selfless AND empty - and so is less substantial than volition...
Is that right? Is it possible according to the Buddha?
Putting my philosophy hat on, it seems weird to say that karma is real but not our experiences. But perhaps the intuition reads that: phenomena cannot be pinned down into belonging to this or that - only that "I" experience them.
Does this make any sense, I'm not sure it does?

What do you mean when you say "Suppose that our volitional processes are real, that the alayavijnana is the ultimate, whereas our "mental states" are fictions."? I don't quite understand the question here.

ok sorry, i'll TRY to make more sense shortly :/

Being empty is to be lacking inherent existence, which is to be lacking in fixed self, which is to be lacking in self. So a thing cannot be empty, and have a self, because being empty is to ultimately have no self, and all objects and phenomena are empty. It is not an either/or scenario, it can never be an either or scenario.
It is like asking if a canvass can be either paintless or blank. It is really a meaningless question, because it is just two ways of pointing at the same truth. It is meaningless to assert that paintless is either less or more substantial than blank. Is the son of a barren woman less substantial than the horns of a rabbit?
The karma is only as real and impactual as the blind attachment, and therefore assumptive delusion of self and true existence or true existential status. These volitional formations can be transcended in practice by developing equanimity, awareness, and insight

The Dhamma teaches that kamma reaches fruition; in this life; in the next life; or in some future life.  I would add that kamma has also reached fruition in previous lives as well.  The dissolution of kamma pertains to when one has reached nibbana and has tathagata (as a verb).  Kamma is therefore not inevitable.  Rebirth is not a reward or a punishment but a process of our maturation in the knowledge of becoming.  Kamma is neither good or bad.  Kamma is either right-minded, neutral or convoluted.  The cause of kamma (action) is our dispositions and our grasping.  With right-mindedness, we can appease our dispositions and end our grasping. All things are empty and therefore already lack inherent existence.  Just like your son of a barren woman, where is your canvas and paint?
What is reborn is a consciousness disposed to grasping for something. We often hear of the the dying exclaiming things like, "Why is this happening to me or, "This cannot be happening to me!?"  Or, "I'm not done yet with what I want to do, I want to live!" These are the thoughts of convoluted logic.
The positive side of samsara has not emphasized.  It is the opportunity to realize nibbana (freedom) by the dissolution of our dispositions and our kammic grasping. If there was only one life in which one could attain nibbana, very, very few would succeed.  This is the teaching of the Enlightened One, the science of the dhamma-vinaya.  I hope this helps you.


text:
Causation without causes
I just reread Bachelor's translation of MMK.
It struck me that the argument against causation was that:
A cause has no essence in addition to what it is, else it would not be the final cause. But it must have an essence if it is to be active for more than a moment.
So everything is radically impermanent: and nothing exists long enough to be born and then cease.
And so everything that is born and ceases is empty, it is not a final cause.
Any conditioned entity is then a mere conventional designation, something which can be identified in a better way (and on forever) and so is always incorrectly identified.

But I was reading about Sautrantika-Yogacara, and the idea that "existents" which aren't unique particulars aren't causally real. This to me seems wrong, I think we can eliminate the unique particulars from a theory and be left with something which is grounded in the particulars' causal properties. This is what some scientific realists do.

My question
Assuming it true that there can be causation without causes, then is there any way to argue that the sentences of science, with their unique particulars eliminated, are not conceptually constructed?
Perhaps because only those particulars are as such, and so empty; and our ideas about the rest of the world can be grounded in them, without that structure being thereby empty.

i hope the question is OK, sorry if it isn't

The Enlightened One taught that there is no cause or "creator" that was eternal or has immortality, such as; a soul or supreme being that was empirically knowable. The Buddha taught that there was causal conditions that are observable in the material world of form and in the conscious dispositionally conditioned state (samskrta). Simply put, the Buddha did not teach eternalism or annihilationism but that everything/everyone is streaming headlong towards becoming.  Perhaps an example might be useful.  A plant seed does not have an inherent cause within it.  It cannot become a tree in and of it's own.  The potentiality might be there but the tree is not evident.  The seed will not germinate without other causal factors; soil, water, temperature, atmosphere, and etc.  It is the causal conditions of these all these things that then cause the seed to germinate.  Once the seed has germinated, we now have the sprout.  Where did the seed go?  And, we no longer conceptualize the seed but the sprout.  Eventually, we may or may not have a tree because there are other factors (causal conditions) that may effect the tree's growth and longevity.
Even emptiness is empty of a state of a substantiality. Dependent arising is not a string of "moments" but a continuous flow of becoming.  If you are looking for a metaphysical cause ( "a final cause" , a "forever" something) that, is simply not evident.  What the Buddha taught was the means to end the general dissatisfaction we have with life and not a metaphysical philosophy. Nibbana is that liberation from dissatisfaction.

I can't make sense of how you made sense of my question :)

It is true that the Enlightened One never taught that there is an eternal creator or First Cause, but neither did he teach that there is not one. In fact he taught disciples not to debate such eternal entities, and we would be skilful to avoid seeking such conclusions about them which cannot lead to closure.

As far as I understand there "is" a substantial underlying nature pervading the all. I say "is" with speech marks because technically the normal 'is' has the opposite 'is not' and refers to the arbitrary conception of existence vs non-existence. (For which this nature is the host and therefore cannot be subject to.) Therefore, although the existents do not fundamentally exist because they are without essence, they are composed of the fundamental substance, which is why they are visible. It is only our conception of their existence which is in error, for phenomena are truly composed of an eternal nature.
So back to the question, cause and effect refers to one inherently existent object being a prime mover to result in another, which is sheer nonsense. Since it is impossible for an inherently existent object to be created or destroyed or even change. But anyway, the true nature produces a continuum of states, no one state can be considered to be ultimate or self-possessing, however we sentient beings use conceptual constructs to point at particular( and arbitrary) definitions of the intermediate states.
It would be pertinent to mention, therefore, that there are really no causes, that is why they are called causes. In as much as the continuum is ever propelled forwards without a hint of any objects. As a result to speak of birth or cessation would be to talk relatively and within an arbitrarily defined set of parameters, a subset of the continuum, whose criteria is the presentation of a set of characteristics that correspond to somebody's idea of what things should be like. A chair is not actually a solid object, it is constantly undergoing changes, but its noticeable characteristics are still close enough to its original form that we aren't aware that it is different. It also still behaves as we would expect a chair to behave. It's birth point is when it behaves enough like a chair to pass examination, it's cessation point is when the continuum in the vicinity of the chair no longer behaves in a way that corresponds to our ideas about chairhood.
Finally then you are correct there are no causes, but there is also no causation and no ending of causation. There is only this. However 'this' closely corresponds with the ideas of 'causation' and therefore I can conventionally claim that 'causation' is true. Likewise I can conventionally claim that, since "this" does display the characteristics of "x" then I would also be wrong to say that it was different, therefore "this" is "x" and that therefore causes do exist. But the reality is that the continuum has no position where it becomes that or stops being that, it does what it does.
All of science is built upon the presupposition that an object is self-possessed, first there was a list of elements which were atoms(indivisible) then they realised it was not indivisible and posited that protons, neutrons and electrons were indivisible. Then they created the so-called fundamental particles list. And then quantum physics which seems to have no main interpretation. Take away existents and all but quantum physics falls into dust. All fabrications are empty.


text:
Whose nirvana is it anyway?
Allow me to take you on a little detour through Heidegger?
He claims that "my death" is inalienably mine: that no one can die my death for me.
I think this means that "my death" never arrives... That may sound weird, but if we view death as a complete extinction of the "person" or whatever makes them up, then the empirical instant that death begins necessarily goes unnoticed - as in I can have no cognition of "my death" or by proxy the time it occurs.
i.e. It cannot be said that the event of my death is in any way only empircally real for me (because such a quality would never arrive): but who else dies for me? Which of course isn't very Buddhist...
But it does make me wonder if a similar thing can be said about nirvanic extinction? Or is the true self of a Buddha his or her nirvana, such that it can be said the Buddha is no more, just not that he or she reached it?

From a buddhist point of view, i think the question is flawed already from the beginning by assuming that there exists a "self or person" by using the words "whose nirvana, my death, person, his or her nirvana".
By using these words it is implied that a self exists which it do not. There exist a physical and a mental stream and nowhere is there a self to be found. A self is not even needed in the equation. Things work just fine without the need for a self.
If you try to search for this self by either using the method of analysis where you break things up into the constituent parts and look at them you will not find a self anywhere.
If you use the method of synthesis by looking at things in a relational/interdependent way by using the doctrine of dependent origination you will also not find a self anywhere. Why? Because according to dependent origination things only exist as a part/reflection of other things. Therefore no real self can be found.
The false idea of a self arises when the 5 aggregates work together as a physio-psychological machine. The false idea of a self is really just one of the 52 mental formations belonging to the 4th aggreate and all the aggregates are subject to the 3 signs of existence; anicca, dukkha, anatta. This is said by Dr. Walpola Rahula on p. 18 in his book "What The Buddha Taught".
So in order to answer your question i would say that you should take out the aforementioned words and then you have your answer which is that no "self or person" achieves nibbana. Assuming that a "self or person" exists is not refering to ultimate reality - paramattha sacca. Instead you are dealing with concepts which is not real.
Lanka

Although in one sense, this is true, in another sense it's utterly false.  Clearly I expect something to happen to me (even if it's that "I" evaporate); otherwise, why would I waste time with Buddhism?

I cannot tell you why you should or should not spend time on buddhism. That is entirely up to you.

Sorry, it was a rhetorical question.  I was just saying that there is a reason for adhering to Buddhism; while your answer is definitely something to keep in mind (and is useful as a corrective to a type of clinging), it's also important not to adhere too strongly to that view, for there is a goal in sight.

they were meant ironically, i am not committed to the existence of persons just because i use that term. so a downvote form me

Don't look at it that way; look at it as the extinction of suffering.
The problem is that Buddhism is dealing with the ineffable, so any attempt to define these phenomena will be imperfect at best and a disaster at worst.  Unfortunately, people have felt compelled to add details and in the process... well, your question is a classic example of the kinds of illusory problems people face.
First, you're obviously going to gain something out of Buddhism, otherwise why practice?  If someone came to me, said that my finances were a wreck, but if I worked an extra job, someone ELSE would improve their finances, I wouldn't waste my time. So why is it different with Buddhism?
It isn't.  However, the problem is that there are two different definitions of "self" that are being used in discourse, and it's not always clear which definition is in use.  Thus semantic confusion reigns, creating illusory problems out of thin air -- nonsensical, utterly unimportant problems that prevent you from doing what Buddhism teaches you to do -- PRACTICE.
One "self" is raw consciousness.  If you stub your toe, you will feel it.  In that sense, that you does and will continue to exist.
The other "self" is the bundle of concepts that you identify with, the history and attributes that you think define "you".  It's that you that won't exist and that's the source of your suffering.
Confusing the issue is the fact that the experience of the first kind of self's experiences can be transformed by one's conceptual filter (it's amazing how our perceptions are shaped by concepts), so that even that self -- while not vanishing -- also seems to be transformed.  That stubbed toe that hurts may involve a lot more conceptualizations in the "physical pain" than you may think.  This means that this first type of self would still feel the stubbed toe, but may not feel the pain of the stubbed toe, given how much of that pain is really conceptualization.
Does your head hurt yet?
A classic saying is "there is suffering, but none who suffers".  On the surface, it seems to almost be a claim that suffering is a purely impersonal phenomena.  In a way it is, but in a way it isn't.  There's experiences that make up suffering, but it's those experiences when conceptualized with respect to the illusory (second type of) self turn those experiences into suffering.  Which means there really is no suffering until we actually believe there is one who suffers (curiously circular, no?) so by eliminating the one who suffers, we eliminate suffering or the suffering of the one who suffered, who actually doesn't really exist, but does in a way.
Ok, NOW does your head hurt?
That's the thing; when we run into so many difficulties that half our time is spent trying to duct tape the holes in our conceptual edifice, it's a sign that we are thinking about the problem in a fundamentally wrong way.
Buddhism itself seemed to notice this and in (what I take) to be a rare moment of lucid self-criticism, it offered the Fetters of Views and Parable of the Poison Arrow teachings.  The idea is to avoid the temptation to conceptualize and instead practice.  If things get better, don't over-think it. Just do what works.

He claims that "my death" is inalienably mine: that no one can die my death for me.

Yes, but what is the phenomenology of "me" and "my". It is an experience that arises and passes away. In fact no experience is inalienably yours. The experience of "mine" (a sense of ownership over the object of experience) arises and passes away. "Mine" is an illusion. It certainly true that you have a first person perspective while you are conscious. But you don't have it when you are asleep for example. Nor when in deep samādhi. If there is no first person perspective then there is no sense of "mine".
So, in order to argue that death is "yours" you would have to argue that the first person perspective is a constant. In fact it is dependent on functioning senses - the five physical senses and the mind. If we are referencing Heidegger then we must admit that the brain and the senses stop working at death. So one can never experience death. At best one might experience the moment immediately preceding death, though I could not say that this moment is different in any way from other moments, but one could not experience death per se because experience ceases with death.
Now orthodox Theravādins say that after the final moment of mental activity in one body, a new moment of mental activity arises in another body. If we take this to mean experience arises, then the experience is of the moment before death, and then the moment of rebirth. With no gap. There is no experience of death. Sarvāstivādins in particular critiqued the idea that the transition was instantaneous - they argued that the transition involved travelling in space and thus must involve an appreciable time. For them there was an interim realm between death and rebirth called an antarābhava (Tibetan "bardo"). But the nature of experience in a mind that has no sense organs or brain is moot. It cannot possibly be experience in the sense that we normally use the word.
So it seems that you are right that "your" death never arrives, at least from your point of view, because your point of view is contingent on being alive. At best it can involve a shift in perspective: from one first perspective to another, either via a mysterious interim or instantaneously.


text:
Specific sutta in the Majjhima Nikaya: Where is past and future discussed?
Im looking for a specific sutta in the Majjhima Nikaya.
In the sutta past and future is being discussed and also how a practitioner on the insight path can gain seclusion from the 5 aggregates.
Help would be much appreciated.
Lanka

Could you be a bit more specific on what topic about past and future was discussed in that sutta?

A few suttas fit this, but try this first -
Bhaddekaratta Sutta: An Auspicious Day
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.131.than.html

That is precisely the one! Thanks a lot.


text:
Specific sutta in the Tipitaka: Where did the Buddha compare leaves in the forest to his knowledge?
I'm trying to find the sutta in where the Buddha is walking through a forest with his disciples. He then picks up a handful of leaves and says that what he teach is comparable to the leaves in his hand and what he did not teach is comparable to the amount of leaves in the forest.
Help would be much appreciated.
Lanka

You are probably after the Simsapa Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html


text:
The cognitive process: the stage of investigating consciousness
When practicing insight meditation and when observing mental formations arising  then sometimes shortly after another mental formation arises caused by the first mental formation.
An example could be a memory that arises then shortly after another memory arises that is closely related to the first one. The second memory is clearly caused by the first one since its similar in appearance and "acts" like a continuation of the first memory.
This picture is from Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. The picture can be found in the chapter "Compendium of the cognitive process", at p. 155. It shows the different stages in the process of cognition.

I was wondering about at what stage in the cognitive process it happens that an object is compared/coupled to previous experiences?
My best guess is that it might be in the stage of "investigating consciousness".
Lanka

It has happens in 7th and 8th steps as "investigating" and "Determining".
Shown as Madhupiṇḍika Sutta (MN 18),
 "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. (Step 5).
  The meeting of the three is contact.("Passa").
  With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling.(Step 6 "Vedana").
 What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind)(Step 7 "Sanna").
 What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.(Step 8 "Chethana").
 Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye."(Step 9-15 "Manasikara").
The place we can break this process at step 7. We can change "the Sanna" by learning or understanding. permannet to Unpermanent Etc..by worldly concepts from Transcendental.

Many people try to read too much into the "17 thought moment sensing process". Please see page 164 of Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" which gives Ledi Sayadaw's explanation.
Basically, in the case of eye-door, the "17 thought moment sensing process" captures a small patch of colour. This is followed by gazillions of mind-door processes that glue the entire field of vision together, grasp shapes, recognize shapes, grasp the name, recognize the name, etc. The comparing the object to past experiences comes much later after lots of thinking has been done. In other words, in the case of the eye-door, the "17 thought moment sensing process" brings a small patch of colour into the mind. That's it. All the subsequent analysis is done by gazillions of mind-door processes.
If you want the "bigger picture", the best place to start is the Madhupiṇḍika Sutta (MN 18), "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye."
In this sutta, the "compared / coupled to past experiences" that you are asking about happens at the final stage.

My simple advice is don't think about it but see it for your self through your practice, maybe if not right not at a later stage. (I don't know whether you see things at the same clarity as in the Abhidamma even when your are fully liberated, but what you see would bee clear enough.)
Being still a worldly person, my basic understanding is that with every thought a sensation arises. Then other thoughts / memories arise which are associated with the particular sensation that arose. E.g. you smell a rose, with the sensation of smell, the next through can be a memory associated with the smell, and next thought is something associated with the previous thought.


text:
Is it ethical to kill plant life while gardening?
I live in Denmark and here we have gotten an amazing concept called "City Gardens". Its basically a 3 x 3 meter garden in the middle of the city granting city dwellers acces to grow their own vegetables, flowers etc.
Yesterday i got one of these gardens (see picture below). I thought about cleaning it up and plant some new stuff in it but then i saw that there were many small plants and flowers growing in it already.
I do know that the first precept is not broken since it covers life that has a breath and a consciousness. But i was wondering if im breaking any other buddhist ethics or precepts by interfering with that plant life already living there?
Help would be much appreciated. Thank you.
Lanka

Wow. You cared for them. Let me appericiate what a beautiful thought you have shared. Bravo 'for the strength that you have in you.

Thank you for your comment Jitin. Before i became a buddhist i have worked with gardening and i care deeply about our nature. Nature can provide a natural calming environment for meditation. And gardening actually creates a unique intimate relationship with nature since one can gradually see life processes and life cycles in "real time". It also allows one to really see the characteristic of impermanence. If you ever get the chance to try gardening i would highly recommend it. Gardening can also be having just a single plant at home. Caring for it and watching it grow.

I am blessed that i am in conversation with a person who has a similarity depicting me.

Just edited the title to better describe the question so people (and search engines can find it). Hope that's OK - please roll back if not

@CrabBucket. I think you made it more precise. Thank you.

I added to my answer to mention tiny animals

@ChrisW. Thanks Chris. I noticed that all the time that there are so many tiny creatures in the earth and lot of earth worms. I have decided to just let nature grow and only interfere minimally with it. I love to observe all the animal life taking place in the garden.

I was fortunate to be able to hear a local dhamma talk yesterday about "tending the garden" in our own mind; watching, watering the good seeds, weeding the wrong views. It was interspersed with the monk asking the audience about their own physical gardens as well. Surprising how many people mentioned feeling badly about pulling up "weeds" and destroying them. Sunim gently reminded everyone how when we compost weeds they become part of the earth again and they'll support new plant life. I thought that was nice. :)

Thank you so much for this perspective Robin. Can i ask if this dhamma talk was audio recorded? There actually is a compost here also so i can put the weeds in there, thereby not wasting stuff. I think that is a beautiful view on it, conceptually speaking. I recently heart this saying: "Only lemons can grow on a lemon tree, meaning that only wholesome actions can spawn wholesome results".

@Robin111 That reminds me of the straw dogs in the Tao Te Ching.

Lanka, I'm sorry, there was no audio recording. It's a local Seon temple where they have a monthly day of mindfulness for anyone to attend. In this tradition the monks do gardening and the grounds are just beautiful. Here is their website http://daeyensa.org/ and facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/groups/54986384456/) which has some nice pictures of the beautiful and peaceful outdoor environment there. :)

Buddhist monks
I think that the vinaya forbids monks to dig: see Destroying Vegetation.
That depends on the school/tradition though, e.g. in some countries where the lay society doesn't support the monks, the monks might do agriculture themselves.
Jains
There's some historical relationship between Buddhism and the Jains. Perhaps Gautama studied with Jain teachers before his enlightenment? Jainism takes ahimsa to a level beyond that in Buddhist doctrine, e.g. vegetarianism is mandatory and it forbids the eating of roots etc.
Tiny animals
I think too I read something of someone visiting Tibet a while ago and reporting that people there were careful about how they dug: very slowly, wanting to avoid hurting worms and so on that live in the soil.
Similarly here's a sentence from Wikipedia's description of Jainism,

Strict Jains, including Jain monks and nuns, do not eat root vegetables such as potatoes, onions and garlic, because tiny organisms are injured when the plant is pulled up, and also because a bulb or tuber's ability to sprout is seen as characteristic of a living being.

The introduction to the Buddhist Vinaya that I mentioned above says,

Digging, breaking the surface of the earth, lighting a fire on it, pounding a stake into it are all disallowed. (If such 'earth' is more gravel or sand than 'soil' — and has no living creatures in it — it may then be dug.)

A couple of other perspectives on treating earthworms gently from an early Buddhism.SE question. :)

The Buddha reportedly ate a meal of pork at least once in his life. So one pig had to lose its life. The Buddha ate rice pudding so some cow had to eat the grass to produce milk and some weeds must have lost their life to have grown the rice.
It seems that no matter what we do in life some harm is done. Maybe do less harm would be more sensible. The Buddha advocated the middle way between hedonism and asceticism. The Tibetan Buddhists eat meat. So what are we to do?
Do no harm against life for selfish ends. Do no harm against our neighbor to gain advantage. Dedicate your work to all beings.
In your case you could donate some of the crop to food pantries servicing the homeless or needy.
In another sense there is only consciousness. When we weed the garden in meditation we make room for a new consciousness. When we plant seeds in the garden or consciousness, we are planting the divine seed of awakening.
Being paralyzed by fear of doing harm is not the middle way as I see it.
Perhaps the saying should be Clear your intentions of doing harm. Have an intention of giving life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

Right intention[edit] Right intention (samyak-saṃkalpa / sammā
  sankappa) can also be known as "right thought", "right resolve",
  "right conception", "right aspiration" or "the exertion of our own
  will to change". In this factor, the practitioner should constantly
  aspire to rid themselves of whatever qualities they know to be wrong
  and immoral. Correct understanding of right view will help the
  practitioner to discern the differences between right intention and
  wrong intention. In the Chinese and Pali Canon, it is explained
  thus:[19][19][21][31][32]
And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom
  from ill will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.
It means the renunciation of the worldly things and an accordant
  greater commitment to the spiritual path; good will; and a commitment
  to non-violence, or harmlessness, towards other living beings.

Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it. Especially the advice of giving some of the plants and flowers to others. I know my "nextdoor garden neightbour" offered me some of her spices so i will give her my plants in return. This way they can live on in another place and be cared for.

Glad you received the comments in the spirit they were given. Intention is the key to the rightness or wrongness of some action. Every action is an opportunity to hone our intention so our intentions are transparent, without selfish implications.

"Every action is an oppertunity to hone our intentions." - Well said.

Keep a smile in your heart!

It is all about intention. you must set your intention on peaceable love, fruition of that love in your garden. there are weeds which are essentially herbs, and you may want to leaner a little of them, as they are actually medicine, and food.
On the weekend we had lectures from the venerable Robina Courtin who spoke of a child crying that his shaved head would take the home from his lice. but if you take yogurt, garlic, you kill the bad flora in your gut. If you take sugar, you kill the good bacteria.if you take medicine, you do the same. everything you do, every action is constructive and destructive. and that is beautiful. it is not the action, but the mind. it is vitriol, pleasure in killing, hatred we must steer clear of.
Your intention is to create a thing of beauty, food for others, something lovely and peaceful to provide retreat. I would build on those thoughts. In good health. Do your best. forget the rest.

Thank you for this thoughtful answer. I like this advice "Do your best. Forget the rest".

In AN 4.198  (quotes below from Bhikkhu Bodhi translation), we have the Buddha discussing four kinds of persons existing in the world:

the one who torments/tortures himself;
the one who torments/tortures others;
the one who torments/tortures himself and others;
and the one who does not torment/torture himself and others:

And how is a person one who does not torment himself or pursue the practice of torturing himself and does not torment others or pursue the practice of torturing others -- the one who, since he torments neither himself nor others, in this very life dwells hungerless, quenched and cooled, experiencing bliss, having himself become divine?

Among the characteristics of this person, we find:

He abstains from injuring seeds and plants.

In "What the Buddha never taught", by Tim Ward, there's a rather humorous section describing the workarounds that monks resort to when they need to kill plants or disturb insects, either to collect firewood, or clear the walking path or empty a water bucket full of mosquito larvae. Since they can't ask a lay person to directly do these harmful deeds for them, they resort to innuendo and hints. This irks the author who resents being the lay assassin for the monks. The author points out that in the end, despite all the fussy rules, of course the jungle always gets cleared one way or the other, and the bucket full of mosquitoes always gets overturned.
Thai Buddhists love their meat, but they can't kill animals, so typically butchers in Thailand are Thai Muslims.
I agree with the author, for I think such workarounds miss the point of Buddhism.
Life is precious, and life needs to be respected. There's no need to make a fuss about it, lest it become a rite and ritual. Nor is it right action to pass on the burden of destruction to someone else.
I'm a vegetarian because I respect life, but if I have to clear a garden I'd rather clear it out myself and take on the karmic consequence than get someone to do it for me.

Thank you for the reference Buddho. I too think that it's not good ethics to pass on the burden of destruction to someone else. We ourselves must take the responsibility for that.

@SriLanka You will enjoy reading "One straw revolution" by Masanobu Fukuoka - see free PDF/ebook. A Japanese customs officer has a kensho awakening, and embraces farming and Zen, cultivating his crops without weeding the land by intelligent use of insects and crops. He finds yields are better and healthier with far less effort and violence.

Good question or better Sadhu for being that heedful! In short remember aside of getting support by certain opinions simply the advises to Rahula and simply process according to them. Maybe Atma can provide some food for thoughts and arguments to deny certain views later.

People who worry about sentience of plant life as beings are actually considered delusional.
I will revise this answer when I find which Buddhist text I read this from but just know that if my memory serves me well, then I remember reading a original Buddhist text Q&A about sentience with the answer ending with a list of delusional trains of thoughts: "there are certain people whom think that since plants are sentient they are also beings, like our brothers and sisters, and to eat them would be wrong. This is a delusion and false thinking."
The take home message: just because something is sentient does not mean it is a being.
However, this does not give you license to go out trampling every plant you see (anger karma and an unnecessarily decreased beneficial thing in the world--you aren't eating it you are smashing it away).
I also add that the attitude of care and love that you approach plants with is excellent and definitely beneficial.

Thank you Ahmed for your comment. Even though plant life dont have a breath they are still living things and thereby worthy of care and respect. Also plants and trees provide oxygen for animals and humans by making photosynthesis.

They are worthy of the utmost care and respect.
They breathe like us and perfectly complement our own breath and health.
This might sound like a contradiction to what I said but I talk to my plants sometimes and I do it because they are sentient and can feel and respond to my feelings and wishes.
But according to Buddhism they are not sentient beings and cannot attain Awakening.

Actually all sentient beings might be considered delusional. Wikipedia defines "sentient" as "composed of the five aggregates" (my guess is that plants are not of all five). However, "A tree deva is a deity that 'lives' in a tree." Except for the existence of devas I would have guessed slightly the opposite of what you said, i.e. I would assume that plants are  in some sense "beings" (because they are certainly composed of form, albeit limited by anatta) but are not entirely "sentient" (that they are composed of sensation and even perception, but I doubt mental formations or consciousness).

@ChrisW I agree. I don't know if it is the complentarity of our natures that gives the semblance of a spirit but yes.. nonetheless this animism is reprimanded though in a Theravadin scriptural Q&A I read on the internet through some vegetarian subreddit...

I am too concerned that I am hurting the 'weeds' when clearing my garden. It's hard to find a balance when you want to be clean of clutter in a communal space. For the most part, I have let the weeds flower at least, giving the insects plenty of available food sources. I've been particular about leaving certain plants ie. Ragwort, as I know cinnabar moth caterpillars eat only this. But now the flowers have died off, I'm now just going to have to dig them up. It's going to be a long task, but I'm also looking forward to the end result of a clean patio ready for my friends to come over and enjoy the summer with me in the garden :)

It's not a sin, however, for doing plant killing you would curse yourself and every generation would be affected. If you kill plant life, make sure you plant one; one to one; Theruwan saranayi

A simple answer would be no,
2 things to remember, the modern science is categorizing plants as living creatures. (not that Buddha rejected)
1) it's the "karma" and your intention in your mind does the "karma". unless you are not intentionally hurting any living thing( assume plants are not living things) it is okay. as per your saying, your intention was clean it up and make it more grown
2) it may affect, if you are cutting whole set of trees in a huge jungle, coz,
that would result in, destroying living places for animals, might kill small creatures in the process, and eventually you are helping to pollute the air, by removing it's cleaning agent, which will kill humans. will break first precept
i think now you can decide on your own

Hi Sachyy_J, Welcome to Buddhism SE! We as Buddhism SE encourage our community to use teachings to answer questions and not to base on personal opinions when answering questions. So beware next time to not to include guesses or personal perspective, But if it is necessary directly say that in your answer before mentioning your opinion.

authors: ปรียะ คําโฮง


text:
How can one navigate the experience of Tanha
I have a no close internet friend who just got stabbed.
Now, seemingly there's nothing more to it than he got in an argument, things were said, and the guy stabbed him. So, my friend doesn't want to involve the police, doesn't want to get any kind of angry revenge toward the perp, he just wants to let it be and carry on doing what he was but with less anger.
Now, for me this seems like an amazing attitude, whether or not he's being hypocritical - which he may not be, it's amazing to have that self control and not even thirst for anything - any kind of sick justice or even self concern.
So, I wondered if there was any way to control my thirsty anger at this turn of events? I don't mean I'm gonna beat the perp up (I don't even know who it was) but yeah, it's wrong to feel anger on someone's behalf, right?
Thanks.

Without being judgmental what is happening here is:

you have a perception of right and wrong
you have a perception of what is beneficial and not towards a loved one
you have a perception of you friend as a loved one

The interaction of these perceptions are causing grief and pain.
You cannot just get rid of perception at will. The process to get rid of the perception thus riding your self of the pain is Vipassana Meditation.

ok, thanks, that answered my question i think - i was talking about very coarse obstructions which the beginning practice of meditation is designed or whatever to help with, thanks :)

Good to know that this was helpful.

The answer has already been chosen, but I really wanted to provide a personal experience that may help.
Back in my 20s, I was in a Buddhist temple and witnessed a woman getting stabbed and raped. I was able to help her get away, but the angst from that 5 minute event haunted me for years. I would wake up in sweats and even get into fights with abusive men simply because I was still so angry.
What I finally did was go into deep meditation and picture the event as a bubble that would float away. I then pictured myself without that bubble. I (mentally) let it go.
It goes back to what the Buddha first called the Forefold Truths, or the "4" in early language. First, you watch anger, emotions, (suffering) arise but instead of attaching to them, you understand that they are just something that's separate from you. You then use meditation to let them go and when you fully let go, you then have a chance at nirvana or total freedom. Keeping that practice of seeing, understanding and letting go is then the eightfold path.
In essence, being Buddhist is being at peace.

both answers are correct.


text:
Thing-hood in Buddhism and meaningfulness
I often struggle with feelings of despair about not so much that I will die but my mortality, my insignificance in a time as time never ends.
But it also occurred to me that actually everyone is in the same boat (so to speak) and so as long as we don't let things define our value, then maybe life has meaning and value.
Is that anything to do with emptiness, or is emptiness more an ontological doctrine than anything about value and meaningfulness ?

There are two things im curious about. 1. Where did you learn that time never ends? 2. Why do you want something to have a meaning?

Sounds like emptiness to me :)

Maybe you would find the answers to Time in Buddhism interesting.
You wrote, "insignificance in a time as time never ends."
The Dharma is meant to be akalika i.e. "timeless", "immediate", "now", and/or "perpetual".

@ChrisW thanks, but personally i can't cognitively buy into that fully, sounds like wittgenstein to me

@Lanka i wouldn't say i "learnt" that time doesn't end, but it seems fairly analytically likely. it's not gonna end when i 'die' anyway, is it? unless unless... but anyway, i want life to have meaning for some kind of redemption.

I think you should contemplate thus:

There were many Buddha's before your current Buddha but their significance and influence has come to an end. My influence on earth is comparatively more insignificant. Any influence or value you bring on the earth has a finite time span. No one is indispensable in the long run. In the grand scheme of things you cannot attach a meaning off significance to your existance, life and influence.

But only until your polarity in looking for significance of existance is subdued. For a lasting solution you have to do Vipassana.

Looking for meaning or lasting influence you are trying to exert some control to you environment which you cannot and lead to misery as if it does not materialise you might think of yourself as a failure. You can try without being too attached to result of your influence.
Trying to give meaning to any thing, you are dealing with concepts and perception. Reality will always be different, hence disappointment. So trying to give meaning to anything will not be entirely satisfactory.

hmm, both seem difficult. i try and find some solace in pursuing artistic er pursuits (i'm doing an MA) but... it's all so believable if you see what i mean at all.


text:
The 12 links and the womb
I think I remember reading that the an unborn child or fetus exemplifies the nidanas in a different way to children and adults.
Am I right that for Buddhists life begins at conception, but this "life" isn't fully conscious, because nama-rupa has not yet developed and so the concomitant links likewise?
Or is the difference between a fetus and a baby more like the difference between a child and an adult?

RE abortion [given that i'm not a vegetarian :/ ] maybe what's important is the potential for intelligence, and with that - bhava. a very prematurely born baby isn't fully human because we can keep them alive, but because it is already cognitively advanced enough to begin to learn, with the potential for human knowledge

DO starts with Depending on Ignorance, mental volition arise, depending on volitions consciousness arise, depending on consciousness, name & form, depending on name & form 6 sense base, depending on 6 sense base contact..etc..
It is commonly accepted (?) that the re-birth linking consciousness(patisandhi) descends into the foetus around 6 months.
At that stage of DO the resultant(vipaka) consciousness from previous existence give rise to name & form, which give rise to 6 sense base. These stages are when our form and senses are conditioned according to our resultant consciousness. The quality and characteristics of our senses etc...
Until the 6 sense base become functional and there is a sense object then only is there contact, feeling and the rest of DO.
So things like people playing music for the yet to be born baby to listen to, do make sense when the ear base is developed.
That's my take on it.

The form may not be fully developed but the Dependent Origination (DO) continues to work.
E.g. in the formless realms DO continues to work though there is no form at all.
There is no difference what ever stage of life you are in. DO continues to work until you are either in Niroda Samapathi or pass away as a Arahath.


text:
Did the Buddha give any advice on how to manage economy?
I was wondering if the Buddha did give any advice on how to manage personal economics?
I assume that the advice would be the middle way as applied to everything else in Buddhism. To stay away from the extremes meaning e.g. spending all of ones money on one thing and instead divide ones amount of money in an equal way.
I remember once reading something about dividing one portion of ones money to food, bills, medicin etc., then one portion to enjoyment, then one portion to charity, then one portion to savings. Unfortunately i have no idea where i read it or if its actually really advice that came from the Buddha.
Thank you for your time.
Lanka

There is good discussion in this article, this article and this article. You can read those for much advice.
For canonical advice:
The Sigalovada Sutta states:

The wise endowed with virtue Shine forth like a burning fire,
  Gathering wealth as bees do honey And heaping it up like an ant hill.
  Once wealth is accumulated, Family and household life may follow. By
  dividing wealth into four parts, True friendships are bound; One part
  should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth set
  aside Against future misfortunes."

The Dighajanu Sutta states:

"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
  the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
  wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
  penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
  my outflow will not exceed my income.' Just as when a weigher or his
  apprentice, when holding the scales, knows, 'It has tipped down so
  much or has tipped up so much,' in the same way, the lay person,
  knowing the income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood
  in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus
  will my income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my
  income.'
"These are the four drains on one's store of wealth: debauchery in
  sex; debauchery in drink; debauchery in gambling; and evil friendship,
  evil companionship, evil camaraderie. Just as if there were a great
  reservoir with four inlets and four drains, and a man were to close
  the inlets and open the drains, and the sky were not to pour down
  proper showers, the depletion of that great reservoir could be
  expected, not its increase.

The Adiya Sutta discusses the 5 benefits obtained from one's wealth. The fifth is charity.
And don't forget that income should come from Right Livelihood, as stated in the Vanijja Sutta:

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

25% enjoyed, 25% saved, 50% on business. I agree but these numbers must be drastically altered if you are poor.


text:
What do buddhists do in a situation of war where all able-bodied men must become soldiers?
I was reading a chapter called "The Buddhist Stand on the Death Sentence" on p. 390-393 in the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda. In here it is written that the law is supreme and that buddhists must always respect and obey the laws of the country they live in and that if they break the law they must also accept the punishment.
Then in the end of the chapter he talks about the situation where war breaks out and all able-bodied men are to be conscripted as soldiers by law of that nation.
Being a soldier requires one to maybe engage in killing of other beings or maybe become forced to commit unwholesome actions that one does not want to do since it will break the buddhist ethical code and precepts. But if they choose not to do it they will be breaking the law of that nation.
What do buddhists do in that situation?
Thank you for your time.
Lanka

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/11/buddhism-bin-laden-death-dalai-lama

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/20156/did-most-of-the-american-riflemen-in-combat-during-world-war-ii-avoid-firing-at

That would be an unfortunate situation. Many 'Buddhist countries' have and are fighting wars where people who are Buddhists are engaged in warfare.
What can a Buddhist do if he is conscripted?
Not all Buddhists are at the same level of virtue, tranquility and wisdom. So it would depend.
Some may refuse to kill and harm and face the consequences.
Others may seeks vocations which does not involve killing.
However, if you are to go to the front
Be mindful
Accept responsibility
Never 'delight' in killing or harming, even an enemy
Contemplate the drawbacks of hate, the ego, self-views (collective and individually)
Once a week keep the Uposatha practice (re: Visakha uposatha sutta)
Practice metta (to one's colleagues and even the enemy, remembering that one could have born into the other side, and be fighting his current comrades.)
Samsara is a dangerous place, there are many times and places where hearing and practicing the Dhamma is impossible. So it is also worth considering to contemplate 'what do buddhists do in situations which are conducive for the Dhamma?'. Many waste such rare opportunities, squander it chasing after sensual pleasures and feeding the ego.


text:
Is there a "good" consciousness?
I wondered if there was a consciousness that underwent nirvana? Is there a consciousness of nirvana? Is there a consciousness that creates either of these consciousnesses?
I would call that the "good" consciousness, like the good guy in the movies. i.e. salvific.

I wondered if there was a consciousness that underwent nirvana?

According to the Theravada abhidhamma, yes, it is called a lokuttara-citta, and it is beautiful (sobhana).

Is there a consciousness of nirvana?

This wording is a bit more difficult to answer. Since nirvana entails unbinding of consciousness, it is hard to describe it as being conscious of anything. Still, technically the mind is said to take nirvana as an object; it is probably better phrased as "object of focus", as in "the mind is focussed on/in unbinding", rather than "the mind is conscious of nirvana" - the latter is a bit of an oxymoron, I think.

Is there a consciousness that creates either of these consciousnesses?

"creates" is a bit problematic. lokuttara minds are said to be unconditioned, yet there is clearly a process that leads to them, and that process clearly involves certain specific minds - namely, the mind that realizes the first and second noble truths.  There is a consciousness that is necessary for the attainment of nirvana; I don't think this exactly means that said consciousness "creates" the nirvana consciousness. It is all very technical. In practice, nirvana is the unbinding, so any talk of creation and arising is very much out of place.

hmm thanks, that's something for me to ponder. :)

What is Good? We usually see a person who does  not cause others harm and is basically of an open benificent attitude "good."
Anything can be described as good based on how open and non-harming it is IMO.
Similarly, a state of consciousness which is Good...
There is a mundane level and super-mundane level to this idea.
The mundane level is this: metta aka loving-kindness: being in an overall attitude of unconditional loving-kindness as well as the other brahmaviharas, mudita, karuna, upekkha.
The supermundane level is probably what you were asking about...
Consciousnesses are only a part of the True Consciousness. They are just imitations and second-level projections.
The best way to reach this True Consciousness is to naturally let it appear by never trying to reach it in the first place.
So to answer your question, yes, the best consciousness is the consciousness in which you are free from suffering and dualism. It is also uncreated and unborn (as the sutras state).
Thus, to achieve the best level of consciousness, let go of all levels of manufactured consciousnesses/ideations (including the idea of achieving itself) and only the truest can remain.

ok so freed consciousness is just that. but e.g. kensho - isn't that a change to a specific consciousness? a nice answer, but i maybe want more. i might accept it...

I wondered if there was a "good" (I mean that in a non-technical way) consciousness?

Consciousness exists as a taker of objects. Consciousness works together with perception to cognize an object in the cognitive process.
Consciousness is not a thing. The problem is that we are forced to talk about it in conventional terms using nouns. That can give the impression that there is "something" there but there is not.
Since there is nothing there, there is nothing to superimpose qualities onto such as "good, bad etc.". The act of superimposing qualities such as "good", "bad" etc. onto objects are taught by the Dalai Lama in his book "How to see Yourself As You Really Are" in the chapter "Identifying Ignorance" on p. 45-49 and the chapter "Why Understanding the Truth Is Needed" on p. 63 where he writes:

"The supreme scholar-practicioners i India - Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, and Dharmakirti - understood that the truth cannot be realized without seeing that we superimpose on people and things a status of solidity and permanence that actually is not there. The emptiness of that false superimposition must be understood, and to do this they analyzed phenomena through scripture and through reasoning".

And further:

"When ignorance is overcome, you will have uprooted the mistaken beliefs that superimpose on objects qualities such as beauty and ugliness beyond what they actually have".

I have made a highlights in this above sections.

What sort of cognition is the cognition of extinction?

I am not sure i understand your question correctly. I will try to answer as best as i can.
When dealing with conditioned phenomena both physical and mental they all follow a specific process. That process is  "arising, presence, dissolution".
When doing insight meditation one can observe this process clearly. The dissolution/extinction part of phenomena happens e.g. when the abdomen has reached full extension on the inbreath and then begins to fall. That is the start of the dissolution step. When the falling of the abdomen has finished then the dissolution step has finished and one can clearly see the impermanence of the breath. This dissolution step can be seen in all phenomena and when observed it will grant access to understanding the impermanent nature of conditioned phenomena.
This is taught by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw in his book
 "A Discourse on the Anattalakkhana Sutta" in the chapters "Refuting A Self Apart From the Five Aggregates" and "Why It Is Called Impermanent" both on p. 85-90.
Lanka

disagree, consciousness is a thing as much as it's objects are.

Thank you for the downvote. Consciousness is a knowing, an awareness of an object. Its not a thing. Things dont even exists. Terms as "good" and "bad" dont even exist. They are all conventional concepts. This can clearly be seen in insight meditation.

i disagree that conventional designations don't exist, but it's a matter of perspective - so i'm not so much claiming that you're answer is wrong but that it doesn't answer the question which is clearly about language and its use, existence and so forth. sorry if i offended you.

You have not offended me. Of course you have your right to disagree. Im not pinpointing that. I just thought it was not good to downvote answers because of personal/subjective opinions. The Buddha has said that its okay to use conventional language but not to be fooled thereby. These things such as language are created by humans they are not real in an ultimate sense. Speaking about profound things such as consciousness with conventional language is bound to cause misunderstanding because language is limited.

Anyway i hope you get an answer that you can use. I wish you a good day and may you be well and happy.

ok, sorry... but it has nothing to do with opinions, it has to do with finding your answer unhelpful, due to being so generic / glossed. i'm glad you're not offended, and have a good day :)

Im sorry too if my answer was generic/glossed. That was not the purpose of it. My answer has as its foundation the teachings from the Dalai Lama and Mahasi Sayadaw. I will put in some references to improve my answer.

Answer updated.

thanks, i wasn't saying your teaching was wrong, at all, only that i found it unhelpful in this instance :) !

Its okay:) Wish you a nice day.

Consciousness is like a cup which is holding water. Without consciousness you will not exist. Buddhism talks about four elements and some relgions three elements, and some five as the basic building block of various objects of Nature including humans. Consciousness is the holding structure for these elements. But if you see it objectively it is just a container which is holding you including mind, various sensory organs etc etc. Can you label a container good or bad? You have trillions of cells organized inside your body. What the is organizing principle here?
Nirvana is a realization that consciousness is not the final thing. Infact it is not a thing. Nirvana does not break consciousness otherwise you will die. It is just that consciousness will not manifest again as a body. Upon death it will be merged with the whole or Sunya or nothingness. Your desire gives a shape to your consciousness. For example if you desire to be a scientist in this birth and it is not fulfilled, consciousness will give it a shape in next birth. You might have PhD parents in your next birth.
Nirvana is a direct experience of something beyond consciousness. Call it superconsciousness or Sunya. From that point on more desire and hence no more movement of consciousness.
It is the most difficult concept intellectually to grasp.

Are your answers based on your personal opinion, or are they based on your personal experience, or are they based on doctrine? If they're based on doctrine then could you reference (i.e. link to or cite) the source (the doctrine) which you're paraphrasing in your answer)?

I am born and brought up in India. These things are imbibed in our interactions with wise men. East is not about doctrines its about living them and there are masters to help you. Consciousness also known as chitta can only be experienced and writing about it is not the right thing. I took the liberty of explaining but I dont think consciousness can be defined in an easy way.


text:
Can we be sensously aware without consciousness?
I wondered (after this thread) what Buddhists have said about this question.
Can anyone, monks, Buddhas, ordinary people, be aware of a sensation without consciousness of it?
And moreover to link it to that question more explicitly, can such a sensation still be pleasant unpleasant or neutral.
Thanks :) !

Short Answer: No.
Long Answer:
First, you'll need to define what you mean by consciousness.  If we take consciousness as "conscious awareness" then by definition, if you don't have consciousness of something, then you are not sensuously aware of it.
However, it's possible that you may unconsciously register things that impact your consciousness later. For instance, if you get a "bad feeling" about someone, this may be due to you unconsciously registering several factors like quick facial sensations, tones being off-kilter, etc...

Without consciousness, there's no registering, no matter how quick it is.

@SankhaKulathantille it depends on how you define consciousness, and unfortunately that term is very slippery.  I take consciousness to be awareness, in which case not only is there registering (without consciousness), but it seems that the VAST MAJORITY of what we register is not conscious.  In fact, consciousness is the tip of the iceberg and a very miniscule portion of our life and functioning.

For anything to register, contact(Phassa) should happen. For contact to happen, consciousness needs to be present. ex: eye consciousness, ear consciousness  etc. Then comes Vedana and then recognition(Sanna). Consciousness is present in all these steps whether the registering is vague or not.

@R.Barzell yeah thanks, that answers my question though i won't mark it answered without a quote or something - thanks :)

@user3293056 Well both Husserl and Sartre said all consciousness is consciousness of something, although this isn't from a Buddhist perspective, and I don't know if this is an exact quote or the motto of the school.  If you're ok with that, I can edit it into my answer.

The answer is no.
I remember from one sutta, ven Ananda asked buddha about consciousness.
In five skandhas, form, sensation, perception, mental formation, and consciousness (vinnana).  Buddha told ven Ananda that consciousness could not exist alone by itself. It has to be conscious at one of the four skandhas. Ven Ananda asked Buddha further if vinnana could menefest in anything besides those 4 .    the answer was no..(thus nirvana is not part of five skandas, there fore, vinnana cannot take root there)  Every single being from lowest plane to highest heaven are conscious of one of four things, form,sensation, perception, and mental formation.  He also asked Buddha,when would a consciousness cease to exist..Buddha said when the other four skandhas cease.  So to answer your question,  consciousness and sensation is circular dependent (Buddha said many times, vinnana ceases when name and form cease ; name and form cease when vinnana ceases)  name and form is another term buddha often use for five skandhas.
I think i answered ur question and then some..

I like this answer. As I understand it, there are only two things (one thing): The Void, and Experience. Someone I know said, "The Void can't know Itself." Thus, Experience came to be. A hologram of light with no screen and no projector.

i would like to add, from a sutta, Buddha mentioned "empty space in a tight spot"  or "a void in a tight place"  .  Buddha siad Consciousness come to be and end, (in modern term like flashes of light or like a synapse of a brain- series of snap shots.  and in between flashes or snap shots of consciousness,  there is a void in between.  this void he referred to as "void in tight space".  In all of us, this is where we do not have consciousness, a place between synapses.  He said only him had first hand knowledge of this phenomena, not even any would arahats would see it.

@Dean Aikas: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.053.than.html


text:
Does final nirvana conventionally exist - especially in the lotus sutra?
Does every tradition, especially ones descended from the lotus sutra and the Buddha's immeasurable life, claim that parinirvana is a conventional existent?
Assuming that it's not a dharma, I don't know.

oh i guess that it is isn't both and neither... hmm

In my experience, zen and tibetan buddhism do not claim that the self of an enlightened one can be completely non existent. In fact a zen master when asked this question might answer "Uncertain." or "yes" or "no". Ask for definite answers is a limiting factor in an unlimited universe.
The following article discusses your question in far more detail than I can:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/pudgalav/

Here is an excerpt that applies to your question: But there is no
  doubt that they affirmed the reality of the self or person, and that
  with scriptural authority they held that the self of an enlightened
  one cannot be described as non-existent after death, in “complete
  Nirvana” (Parinirvana), even though the five “aggregates” which are
  the basis of its identity have then passed away without any
  possibility of recurrence in a further life. These five are material
  form, feeling, ideation, mental forces, and consciousness.
It seems, then, that they thought of some aspect or dimension of the
  self as transcending the aggregates and may have identified that
  aspect with Nirvana, which like most early Buddhists they regarded as
  an eternal reality. In its involvement with the aggregates through
  successive lives, the self could be seen as characterized by incessant
  change; but in its eternal aspect, it could be seen as having an
  identity that remains constant through all its lives until it fulfils
  itself in the impersonal happiness of Parinirvana. Although their
  account of the self seemed unorthodox and irrational to their Buddhist
  opponents, the Pudgalavādins evidently believed that only such an
  account could do justice to the Buddha’s moral teaching, to the
  accepted facts of karma, rebirth and liberation, and to our actual
  experience of selves and persons.

yeah - the unanswered questions. i was trying to frame them in a different way that might leave the question answered and not indeterminate :)

With all due respect, what could anyone do with the answer if they could quantify it or express it in words? It might resemble asking what the theory of swimming is when the boat has capsized and someone is uncertain of how to swim.  On the other hand some Buddhist traditions consider the answers to such questions to be of importance. I am glad you asked the question. I will be glad if no one tries to answer it definitively because we could be swayed to believe that we know the answer.  Thank you.


text:
Seeking to enlighten other sentient beings - is it ever redemptive
Following on from a few question I've asked about nihilism, I wondered - quite casually if not in an idle way - whether seeking to enlighten other sentient beings (into Buddhahood) is ever redemptive of either stimulus or response (I just mean self and other)?
Because in zen you can't seek to be a buddha, and in pure land you seek deliverance from another buddha, and theravada teaches the path of the arhant.

I used to wonder whether I did good deeds just to do good deeds or because it made me feel better and I got something out of it. I laugh sometimes at how hard we think about things. Literally worrying to much about whether we are being self rightous in doing good deeds causes us to actually be self rightous just worrying about it. Who cares whether we are doing good deeds or enlightening others for our own benefit! If it actually gets people to awaken and helps others then so be it! If doing good deeds because it makes yourself feel better ends up helping other people, then we should hope that our egos be filled to the brim!

You seek to enlighten others out of compassion and not as a form of redemption.
It is your choice what path you take out of the 3 roads to liberation. Buddhahood being the longest.

Gautma Buddha is said to have been a Bodhisatva for several hundreds of thousands of aeons.
The Theravada school usually says that these extremely long periods are  required by a Buddha to train oneself. If we assume that the training took 1,000,000,000,000 years and he taught as a Buddha for 45 years, then the training to teaching ratio is extremely ineffective.
The Mahayana school says that Bodhisatvas could have become Arhats way before that but intentionally delayed this decision out of compassion to countless of beings. Hence, these extremely long periods are required by a Bodhisatva not necessarily to to train oneself, but to train others. Therefore the state of Bodhisatva is a special delay mechanism to allow a future Buddha to continue in the cycle of life and death, and gradually train countless of beings into Unbinding from the cycle of death.

In my understanding it is impossible for an Unenlightened Being to Enlighten another being.
It is impossible even for an Enlightened Being to Enlighten someone else.
The Buddha was asked why can't he enlighten all beings. The Buddha answered that he only shows the way, each has to walk on the path for himself.


text:
Is the true self reborn?
In Mahayana Buddhism, is it the true self that is reborn, or is it the empirical self?
I tend to see it described as if it's just the latter, but then if I am my true self, then doesn't that equate to annihilationism and nihilism?

There is no rebirth or reincarnation in the sense that the soul takes on a new body (rebirth / reincarnation) after death. (In Sinhala Punarupathi)
In Buddhism conception which is the continuation of the Bhava from end of the previous life (death) in the cycle of Samsara. (Punarbhava)
In other words this is a process in which there are events like birth and death. In the light that there is no everlasting unchanging core this is not a rebirth as it is not the person from the previous existence nor it is a entirely different being, but just the continuous flow of the process of becoming.
Continuation of a core entity (rebirth / reincarnation) is a Hindu concept. Buddhist concept is the continuation of the process.
Since there is a continuation (of the process), all doesn't end with death.
The confusion about rebirth is due to rebirth being used in Buddhist translation due to the limitations of the vocabulary and there is no better world to use.
(I am not sure if this fits into the Maha Yana take on the matter. )

True self is a phrase that comes up in Chan/Zen. It sometimes considered indistinguishable from the idea of an eternal soul, but never stated so clearly as that.
Empirical self, according to google is a phrase used by Kant, the psychologist William James, and I suppose it has a man in the street definition of "who you are in the sense of what is empirically provable, observable."  I don't claim to understand Kant, and I don't have time to read James, I'll use the man in the street definition.
The Mahayana philosopher who put the most thought into the question of eternalism vs extinctionalism is Nagarjuna, who came up with a two truth's doctrine, that there is a truth for the ordinary world and a truth for the transcendent, supermundane, supernatural world. I don't actually follow Nagarjuna's arguments, it's somewhat abstruse. I think he means to say in the conventional sense of truth, we're dead, in the transcendent truth, there wasn't a difference between being alive and dead.
He also rejected that we were eternal, and rejected that we would become extinct (die for good), and appealed to a middle between these as the appropriate belief. This defies my man in the street sense of logic (mortality and immortality seem pretty exclusive and opposite), but I've read that this can also be interpreted to mean that they are both possibly true, meaning it's a statement with multiple truth values, (true, false, and just don't know) and this statement about life after death isn't true, isn't false, so that leaves "just don't know".
And that gets us to having to deal with life after death on faith, which is certainly a Mahayana concept.

The conventional self is reborn. This is the relative truth.
If one analyses with logic and reasoning trying to find exactly what is the self that is reborn looking for some "true self" one comes up empty handed. This is the ultimate truth.
These together are the two truths.

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