text:
Understanding Saṅkhāra in dependent origination as *choices* of body, speech and mind?
Continuing to try to understand Dependent Origination from my own reading of the suttas as well trying to grok the understanding of other skilled practitioners and I've come across an interesting debate. The second nidana of D.O. is commonly translated as 'volitional factors' or 'choices' as seen by this translation of SN 12.2:

And what are choices? There are three kinds of choices. Choices by way
  of body, speech, and mind. These are called choices.

However, I've detected that maybe not all skilled practitioners on this forum agree that this is an accurate translation? It has been suggested that the best means of figuring this out - as the Buddha instructed! - is to put it to empirical test in personal meditation practice. Marvelous suggestion and I'm hoping to conduct just such an experiment!
However, I want to nail down the actual disagreement if there is one - I'm still not entirely sure there is - and to figure out how to setup the experiment to reveal the truth.
First, I've seen alternative translations on this site which omit the 'volitional' or 'choices' connotation and use the alternative 'accumulated tendencies' to describe the Saṅkhāra. Is it agreed by Theravada that this is the proper translation? How about by Mahayana?
I've found support for the proposition that not all Saṅkhāra is intentional from SN 12.38:

If you don’t intend or plan, but still have underlying tendencies,
  this becomes a support for the continuation of consciousness. When
  this support exists, consciousness becomes established. When
  consciousness is established and grows, there is rebirth into a new
  state of existence in the future. When there is rebirth into a new
  state of existence in the future, future rebirth, old age, and death
  come to be, as do sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
  That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.

Second, what is the proper translation? ... assuming there is disagreement that 'accumulated tendencies' is the proper translation - even though it omits the connotation of choice. Could it simply be 'actions resulting from ignorance?'
Third, is it proper to think of the labored breathing that comes from the arising of disturbing emotions as Saṅkhāra? It does seem to me to be non-volitional... Is this right?
Fourth, is it an accumulated tendency? Perhaps some Saṅkhāra are accumulated habits that may involve some measure of choice and some are simply non-volitional and have nothing to do with 'accumulation' per se? The labored breathing or change in breathing that comes involuntarily from the arising of disturbing emotions... the fact of it itself does not seem to me to be accumulated? Perhaps the 'accumulation' refers to some aspect of it - the extent or intensity - that could very well be accumulated? Like some people might have a very slight ripple while others - because of accumulated tendencies - might hyperventilate?
Fifth, it's been suggested that when one attains a certain proficiency in meditation the true definition of Saṅkhāra can be seen, but what level of proficiency is necessary to reveal the truth and in what form of meditation? What is the minimum level of competence necessary to verify this and the kind of type of meditation necessary?
Visualizing the experiment... I imagine one must be able to calm the mind to a sufficient degree that one can witness the waves generated when a disturbing emotion arises in much the same way we are easily be able to notice the waves generated when a rock hits a still pond. The waves would be the Saṅkhāra (some action of breath or speech or mind?) and the question would be whether there was choice involved or if any aspect of the wave was a characteristic reinforced through accumulation?
Help or ideas appreciated!

skilled practitioners

Yes.

The second nidana of D.O. is commonly translated as 'volitional factors' or 'choices'

The above is wrong. "Volition" is 1st mentioned at nama-rupa.

There are three kinds of choices. Choices by way of body, speech, and mind. These are called choices.

The Pali is kaya, vaci & citta sankhara, which are defined in MN 44 as in & out breathing; initial & sustained thought; and perception & feeling.
Breathing conditions the state of the body = kaya sankharo = body conditioner.
Thought conditions speech = vaci sankharo = verbal conditioner.
Perception & feeling condition the state of the mind = citta sankhara = mind conditioner.

I've detected that maybe not all skilled practitioners on this forum agree that this is an accurate translation?

D.O. was hijacked to create a theory of reincarnation to provide moral teachings to people. Not all practitioners teach D.O. the same because some monks deliberately don't teach the truth but teach skillful means.

It has been suggested that the best means of figuring this out - as the Buddha instructed! - is to put it to empirical test in personal meditation practice.

Yes. My explanation accords with meditation practice.

I've found support for the proposition that not all Saṅkhāra is intentional from SN 12.38:

The above is irrelevant because it is not about the 2nd condition sankhara. It is about "becoming" or "patiṭṭhā
 viññāṇa", similar to AN 3.76. It says:

When consciousness is established and grows, there is production of a new state of existence (bhavā) in the future.

Note: Bhikkhu Sujato translations are often ignored by serious scholars; particularly anything about dependent origination.

Second, what is the proper translation? ... assuming there is disagreement that 'accumulated tendencies' is the proper translation - even though it omits the connotation of choice. Could it simply be 'actions resulting from ignorance?'

You are bouncing too far ahead, from ignorance to kamma. Kamma does not occur until volition, which starts at nama-rupa and then starts again at attachment.
The word "anusaya" means "underlying tendencies" and is often mentioned after contact, such as in MN 148. My point is the use of the word "anusaya" does not indicate any of the specific 12 conditions.
While "anusaya" is part of ignorance; the word "anusaya" is used in different places in the teachings.

Third, is it proper to think of the labored breathing that comes from the arising of disturbing emotions as Saṅkhāra? It does seem to me to be non-volitional... Is this right?

Correct. This is the correct view of kaya-sankhara, as confirmed by meditation.

Fourth, is it an accumulated tendency?

No. The underlying tendencies are part of ignorance (AN 7.11). They "asava" or "flow out" at ignorance (MN 9). They cause the breathing (kaya sankhara) to become laboured and also can trigger discursive thoughts & memories (vaci & citta sankhara).

Perhaps some Saṅkhāra are accumulated habits

No. Please do not use Mahayana to interpret Pali. Nagarjuna was wrong about sankhara, the same as most Theravada commentators are wrong.
"Accumulated tendencies", which is an energetic drive, form part of ignorance. The "sankhara" they trigger may be classed as "habitual thoughts" however the underlying drive or tendency is part of ignorance.
In meditation, when you crush a discursive thought, the pulsating energy can still remain.
The discursive thought is "sankhara". The pulsating underlying energy is part of "ignorance", as clearly described in MN 9. Read MN 9, the very end of the sutta.

that may involve some measure of choice

No. There is no choice at sankhara. Sankhara is the opposite. It is non-choice. The choice occurs at nama-rupa, when nama-rupa feels, perceives & has contact with the sankhara. Refer to MN 19, which clearly describes how Buddha made a choice to end the discursive thoughts.

and some are simply non-volitional

Sankhara are non-volitional.

and have nothing to do with 'accumulation' per se?

Not all underlying tendencies are "accumulated" from the past. Some underlying tendencies are in-born (refer to MN 64, beginning of sutta).

The labored breathing or change in breathing that comes involuntarily from the arising of disturbing emotions...

Yes!

the fact of it itself does not seem to me to be accumulated?

The ignorant emotion may be accumulated and "stored". But the sankhara is not accumulated. Each sankhara is a new sankhara.

Perhaps the 'accumulation' refers to some aspect of it -

Pali does not use the term "accumulated". Forget this term.

Fifth, it's been suggested that when one attains a certain proficiency in meditation the true definition of Saṅkhāra can be seen

Indeed.

but what level of proficiency is necessary to reveal the truth and in what form of meditation?

Clear mind established in breathing.
Clear mind must be able to see the arise of discursive thoughts out of relative empty or thoughtless mind.

Visualizing the experiment... I imagine one must be able to calm the mind to a sufficient degree that one can witness the waves generated when a disturbing emotion arises

Yes!

in much the same way we are easily be able to notice the waves generated when a rock hits a still pond.

Yes!

The waves would be the Saṅkhāra (some action of breath or speech or mind?)

Waves are formed by energy. The energy is from ignorance. The waves are sankhara.
Its not "action". Its "motion" of breath, thought or feeling/perception.

and the question would be whether there was choice involved

There is no choice at this level. You should already understand when distracting thoughts arise in meditation (when you want to concentrate) they are not a "choice".

or if any aspect of the wave was a characteristic reinforced through accumulation?

No. They are not reinforced at "sankhara".
They are reinforced at nama-rupa, when nama "chooses" to give "attention" to those sankhara. Remember, "nama" is "feeling, perception, intention/choice, contact & attention".
Again, read MN 19, the part where the Buddha mentions "inclination of mind". The word "inclination" is "namati", the verb of "nama".
The ignorant sankhara is either reinforced at nama-rupa, by giving attention to the ignorant sankhara; or, otherwise, the ignorant sankhara is cut & stopped at nama-rupa.

Help or ideas appreciated!

Study very carefully or meditatively page 3 to 6 of this link: Shape of Suffering by Bhikkhu Thanissaro.
Or read my blog: Dependent origination: Namarupa and here: Dependent origination: Sankhara

Upādānaparipavattasutta (SN 22.56) says saṅkhārā are choices

No. SN 22,56 says sankhara khandha is choices. The word sankhara is used in many contexts in the suttas. For example, SN 41.6 says kaya-sankhara is the breathing.

Creation of Sankara - Mental Formation only through - Thought, Words and Action with clinging (Upaadana) to create cause (karma) if equanimity no Karma created.
Paticca Samupada (D.O.) - only after feeling - craving it moves to Jaana stage where Sankara upaadaana creates Karma -
Consciousness - no continuation
Anicca = nothing is permanent therefore nothing continues
There is no re-incarnation in Budhha Dharma - it is re-birth process
What method of meditation you practise and the Kamatahan you received from your teacher?
Anyway, all kinds of thoughts arise during meditative practice but that is natural, as long as you know and acknowledge each thought and get back to your main breathing meditation -  you will go through four stages if you are practicing Sati Pattana
For your information no waves are accumulated... they are impressions only.
Nama - Rupa cannot generate Sankara... Sankara is created only from Mental Formation aggregate... Nama Rupa is basically Mind+ Body which arises after consciousness in D.O.
The five aggregates arise with Craving...and \Sankara to create Karma it would have to be Sankaara with Upaadana, because even Arahant can have sankaara but that is with equanimity and those Sankaaras do not create Karma (cause)
Hope these answers would help you

In English language "impression" means "press in", like when you have a flat piece of soft clay and you press a shape into it, which leaves a mark. This is the meaning of the word "impression". It means, something is left behind, something stays (the mark). When something happens again and again, it leaves many marks (many impressions). Leaving many marks means the impressions are "accumulated". So for example, when the baby sees the mother again and again, those impressions are accumulated until there is recognition: "This has happened before. It gives milk." - mental formation.

exactly that's what it is, induced.... many things you will not understand at this stage, that's why it is also call mental impression...  - for instance information is induced, it cannot be accumilated since it's not a material phenomena and your example for the baby is not correct either. If  I may ask you where do you think these so call waves are accumilating?

Of course information can be accumulated. When you study Dharma is that not accumulation of information? I don't know what waves you're talking about.

I am referring to the answers of Dhammadatu regarding waves in his answers to the original questions. – where he says that waves are accumulated  -you can read it then you will understand what it says.
I like to know from you, how you accumulate the information or karma  or anything and where are they been stored/kept according to you?
It seems you have not managed to comprehend the mechanism of Chuti Chitta to prathisandhi process and if you did you should know nothing can be accumulated.

The comments under this answer are accumulating, so I will stop.

The involvement of intention need not be ones own:

DN33:1.11.171: Four kinds of reincarnation. There is a reincarnation where only one’s own intention is effective, not that of others. There is a reincarnation where only the intention of others is effective, not one’s own.  There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions are effective.  There is a reincarnation where neither one’s own nor others’ intentions are effective.

If we are awoken and killed by robbers in our own homes and horrified by that killing, then that kamma is driven by the intentions of others interacting with our own underlying clinging to life.
This example is a bit dramatic but it points out the fallacy that intention arises locally out of self. Therefore our experiments must include acceptance of what is experienced without underlying tendencies.


text:
Are the Skandhas reborn from moment-to-moment?
Imagine a human being born in 1982 weighing a few pounds at birth and labeled 'Melinda' by her parents. This little human being grows up - as little human beings tend to do - and by 2020 we imagine her as an adult no longer called 'Melinda', but rather change her name to 'Abigail.' If we examine the bodies of Melinda and Abigail down to the atom and perform a thorough and exact accounting we find that Melinda and Abigail do not share even one atom in common. Their brains are composed of entirely different atoms.
Is the rupa skandha of Melinda and Abigail the same or different? Has it been reborn? What was the manner of its rebirth? How did it occur? How many times did it occur between 1982 to 2020? Is the same true of the other skandhas... have they been reborn? Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical laws or some combination?
Did 'Melinda' die sometime between 1982 and 2020 and get utterly annihilated? Was Abigail born for the first time from scratch between 1982 and 2020 and just pop into existence from nothing?
How is it possible that beings are reborn from moment-to-moment? In what manner and to what extent? What did the Buddha teach?

Imagine a camp fire that started in 1982. The original fuel has burned down but new fuel is regularly added. The overall shape and configuration of the fire in 2020 is somewhat reminiscent of the original 1982 fire but of course none of the material is the same.
Now if we were to analytically separate the fire into several categories (skandhas) we would find wood, ash, heat, light, oxygen, and smoke - all playing their roles in the maintenance (upadana) of fire.
Is it the same fire staying or is the fire "reborn" moment to moment? It's neither and both, these are just concepts to explain the working of causal continuity.
One important mistake in the worldview underlying your original question:  it assumes that "the fire" starts when a new human is born. But this is not so. The fire has been continuously burning through generations. "The beginning point is not evident". A new human is just another tongue of flame.

Is the rupa skhanda of Melinda and Abigail the same or different?

The teachings say the khandhas alter, change (SN 22.1), are impermanent (SN 22.59).

Has it been reborn?

No. The Pali words translated as 'reborn' are associated with "kamma" or "volition". The change & alteration of the rupa khandha over the lifetime is not related to volition (apart from volitionally produced change, such as from eating too much or having plastic surgery).

What was the manner of its rebirth?

Its not reborn. Only identity towards the rupa khandha is 'reborn'.

Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical
  laws or some combination?

Reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I'

Did 'Melinda' die sometime between 1982 and 2020 and get utterly annihilated?

Yes, it seems so. In the Pali suttas (DN 1; Iti 49; etc) the term "annihilation" refers to the annihilation of a "self-view" or "existent being".

Was Abigail born for the first time from scratch between 1982 and 2020 and just pop into existence from nothing?

Yes. But not from nothing. Abligail was born from ignorance & craving.

How is it possible that beings are reborn from moment-to-moment? In
  what manner and to what extent? What did the Buddha teach?

SN 12.2 defines "jati" or "birth" as a "category of beings produced by the manifestation of their aggregates and the acquisition of their sense bases (of identification)".
For example, Abigail craves to be attractive, manifests her aggregates by wearing make up and sex clothing and mental behaving in certain seductive ways. She identifies herself within the category of "sexy women". If men don't pay attention to her, sorrow arises. If other sexy women look more sexy than her, despair arises. Sorrow & despair arise with the "aging & death" of her fragile identity. Despite these setbacks, her repetition of such sexualising behaviour is "rebirthing" or "upapajjati".
The word "upapatti/upapajjati" ("rebirth/reborn") appears not related to the word "jati" ("birth"). 'Upapajjati' is 'upa + pad + ya'; where the root 'pad' appears to mean 'to walk; to move' and the suffix 'upa' means 'close to' or 'near'. 'Jati' appears to be a noun from the verb root 'jan'; which appears to mean "bring forth'.
Therefore, "jati" appears to mean "bring forth" and "upapajjati" appears to mean "to continue/be in a similar manner as before".
For example, SN 12.10, includes both "jati" & "upapajjati", where the word "jayati" is the "verb" for the noun "jati", as follows:

Mendicants, before my awakening — when I was still unawakened but
  intent on awakening— I thought:
Pubbeva me, bhikkhave, sambodhā anabhisambuddhassa bodhisattasseva
  sato etadahosi:
‘Alas, this world has fallen into trouble. It is born, grows old, dies,
  passes away, and is reborn [continues in the same manner as before]...
‘kicchaṃ vatāyaṃ loko āpanno jāyati ca jīyati ca mīyati ca cavati ca
  upapajjati ca.

OP: Are the Skandha's reborn from moment-to-moment?

Yes.

Viññāṇapaccayā nāma-rūpaṃ, “dependent on consciousness arises mentality-materiality.” The term nāma here stands for the mental states (cetasika), in other words, the three mental groups: namely, feeling (vedanākkhandha), perception (saññākkhandha), and volitional or mental formations (saṅkhārakkhandha).
The so called “being” (satta, Skt. sattva) is composed of five aggregates or groups (pañcakkhandha); namely, physical body, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness (rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā and viññāṇa). If consciousness is taken as the mind, then feeling, perceptions and volitional formations are the concomitants or factors of that mind. Now when we say dependent on consciousness arises nāma-rūpa, mentality-materiality, materiality means the physical body, its organs, faculties, and functions. Mentality means the factors of the mind mentioned above. In other words, viññāṇa-paccayā nāma-rūpaṃ means dependent on consciousness arise the three mental concomitants (feeling, perception, and volitional formations) that compose mentality, along with the conascent material body in its first embryonic stage.
Consciousness and its factors (citta-cetasika) are always interrelated and interdependent. Consciousness cannot arise and function independently of its factors, nor can the factors arise and function without consciousness. They arise simultaneously (sahajāta-paccaya) and have no independent existence.
The function of viññāṇa, consciousness, is varied. The third factor of the chain is made known to us as viññāṇa; now here again we hear of a sixth base, manāyatana, which is identical with consciousness. But here by manāyatana different types of consciousness are meant. It should be borne in mind that consciousness is not something that is permanent and everlasting. It undergoes change, not remaining the same for two consecutive moments; it comes into being and immediately passes away yielding place to a new consciousness. “These mental phenomena are, as it were, only the different aspects of those units of consciousness which like lightning every moment flash up and immediately thereafter disappear forever.”

Source: Dependent Origination (Paṭicca Samuppāda) by Piyadassi Thera

OP: Is the rupa skhanda of Melinda and Abigail the same or different?

This is neither the same nor different. There is not core which is transmitted but each series of Skandas are a product of same DO process.

OP: Has it been reborn?

Yes. They die and recreated as the wheel of DO roles forward.

There are three kinds of death: death as
  cutting off, momentary death, and conventional death. Death as cutting off belongs
  to those whose cankers are exhausted (and are Arahants). Momentary death is
  that of each consciousness of the cognitive series beginning with life-continuum
  consciousness, which arise each immediately on the cessation of the one preceding.
  Conventional death is that of all (so-called) living beings. Mine will be conventional
  death.

Introduction to The Path of Purification Visuddhimagga

OP: What was the manner of its rebirth? How did it occur?

Past conditioning gives rise to the consciousness, mind and matter and 6 sense bases for the monetary experience. The craving towards the feelings is the fuel which keeps the cycle going.

OP: How many times did it occur between 1982 to 2020?

Rūpa also arises and dissolves at a tremendous rate of more
than 58 billion times per second. So for such a long period, it is difficult to say.

The Life-Time of Citta
Citta (consciousness) arises and dissolves in a person at a
  tremendous rate of more than a thousand billion times per eye-wink
  and there are about 250 eye-winks in a second. So, the life-time of a
  citta is less than one-thousand billionth of a second.
The life-time or duration of a citta is measured by three short
  instants, characterising the distinct features in the arising and passing
  of the citta. These are: (i) uppāda- the arising instant, (ii) ṭhiti- the
  presence or existing instant and (iii) bhanga- the dissolving instant.
  These three short instants (khaṇas) are said to be “one moment of
  consciousness” or “one conscious moment” (cittakkhaṇa). So, the lifetime of a citta is equal to the three short instants of arising, existing
  and dissolving of citta, i.e. it is equal to one conscious moment
  (cittakkhaṇa).
The Life-Time of Matter-Rūpa
The life-time of matter or Rūpa is 17 times longer than that of
  citta. So, we can say that the life-time of rūpa is equal to 17
  cittakkhaṇas, or 17 conscious moments, or 51 short instants (17X3 =
  51); as there are 3 short instants in a moment of consciousness.
Thus, rūpa also arises and dissolves at a tremendous rate of more
  than 58 billion times per second. The difference between citta and
  rūpa is as follows: citta arise one after another, whereas rūpa arise by
  manifesting as thousands of units in a small instant and it goes on
  constantly arising at every small instant in time. Therefore, rūpa may
  accumulate to become large masses that are visible to the naked eye,
  whereas the fleeting stream of consciousnesses is invisible to the
  naked eye.

Process of Consciousness and Matter by Rewata Dhamma

OP: Is the same true of the other skhandas... have they been reborn?

Yes.

OP: Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical laws or some combination?

This is due to conditioning fueled by craving. Self-identification leads to craving. See this, this and this answer.

My interpretation, is that when Buddha stated, "birth is ended," he meant that the physical act of birth is ended.  No matter what.  If you experience birth again, then birth is not ended.  I don't mean moment-to-moment rebirth.  I mean physical birth.

I think that "birth" is part of the doctrine on Dependent Origination.
DO includes "contact" and I don't think it's applicable to a single skandha.
The doctrine about skandhas are a way to deconstruct a being -- they're mentioned in the first two suttas, i.e. as "aggregates of attachment" in the second noble truth, and in the  Anatta-lakkhana Sutta -- whereas DO is a deconstruction (analysis) of becoming.
Instead the question, about the identity of the body (and further deconstructing it into atoms), reminds me more of what (little) I know of the sunyata doctrine.
I don't remember a lot of doctrine about "moment-to-moment" in the suttas, except maybe being calm and heedful. But the Abhidhamma has doctrine about "thought-moments", cetasikas.
If you're wondering how rebirth continues across the death of the body, apparently that like was a frequently-asked question -- and one (at least one) early Buddhist school developed the "store-house consciousness" doctrine to explain that.

After looking at all the answers - many of which are noble - I think the best answer is a synthesis of the answers proffered here with a few minor tweaks.
I think Andrei comes very close to a complete answer and there is nothing per se that I find disagreeable, but I think more can and should be said. Likewise, Suminda's answer is straightforward and seems largely correct to me and I appreciate how direct it is.
Some of the answers dwell on the word 'reborn' which exists only by convention without one iota of inherent meaning. I don't think dwelling on the particular translation of the words in the Pali having to do with 'birth' and 'rebirth' and 'reborn' is revealing in this case. Often times I think dwelling on the translations of suttas and getting attached to and wrapped in the meaning of words as if they have inherent meaning can act as a hindrance to true understanding of the Dharma. It is not that definitions of words or accuracy in translation is unimportant - indeed it often is crucial! - but getting hung up on them can also be problematic in some contexts.
So here goes an attempted synthesis...
Is the rupa skandha of Melinda and Abigail the same or different?
Different! But only conventionally so. It is stated right in the hypothetical that no two atoms are the same. Insofar as you believe in the quantum theory of matter, then you have to grant that they are different. However, this is only conventionally so because both utterly lack inherent existence.
Has it been reborn?
Sure! That's an applicable use of the word 'reborn' in this context in that I think it is useful and conveys meaning as both Andrei and Suminda similarly attest. What do we mean?
That the skhanda is in a state of constant change and flux. The body is ever changing. You can not find any two moments - of any duration whatosever - where no distinction can be made between them. In this sense, the body is 'reborn' continuously from moment-to-moment.
Of course, you could object and say that we don't normally use the word 'reborn' in this context, ie, that it is not conventionally used this way... and sure I'd grant that, but the fact that both Andrei and Suminda understood leads me to believe this convention is of course subject to change ;)
What was the manner of its rebirth? How did it occur?
It was reborn due to being impermanent and in a state of constant flux. All conditioned things are such and the manner is such and occurs because of the utter lack of inherent being in these phenomena.
How many times did it occur between 1982 to 2020?
It is impossible to find two moments - of any duration whatsoever - where no distinction can be made between the rupa skandha of one and the other.
Is the same true of the other skandhas... have they been reborn?
Yes.
Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical laws or some combination?
They are inanimate and not sentient and have no capacity for 'identification' with an 'I' no more than fire does as Andrei rightly points out. It is our identification with them and ignorance of them - as sentient beings - that mistakes these phenomena that exist only by convention and mistakes them for real and substantial phenomena. They utterly are not.
Did 'Melinda' die sometime between 1982 and 2020 and get utterly annihilated?
No! We don't say conventionally that 'Melinda' died, but rather say that she changed her name to 'Abigail'. Of course, we could change the convention to say that someone 'dies' when there name is changed. That's up to us as shared creators of our conventions.
However, to think that she was utterly annihilated is to posit that 'Melinda' existed in some real and substantial way when she utterly did not. 'Melinda' was just a label that we attached by convention and we simply changed it to 'Abigail'... This is really, really, important to understand. Thinking that anything was utterly annihilated is making the error in assuming that there was something real and substantial before! There never was!!
Was Abigail born for the first time from scratch between 1982 and 2020 and just pop into existence from nothing?
Nope! All that happened was we changed the entirely conventional label 'Melinda' to 'Abigail' and we don't call this being 'born' ... although if we all got together and started to do this ... ie, change the convention ... we could! In other words, there is nothing inherently existing about the word 'born' here that would preclude it from being used affirmatively in this situation. We just don't happen to do that as a convention. But conventions change of course. Can anyone guess why conventions can change? Because they don't have one iota of inherent existence of course! :)
It is entirely another thing to think that something real and substantial would miraculously pop into existence with the simple act of changing a name. It is entirely because there is nothing real and substantial about a name that allows us to change it. It is just a mere convention. Like all phenomena.
How is it possible that beings are reborn from moment-to-moment? In what manner and to what extent?
In the exact same way and in the exact same manner as Melinda/Abigail's rupa skandha and in the exact same way and exact same manner as all phenomena: due to the utter lack of inherent existence in any existing thing. Because all things only exist conventionally without one bit of inherent being whatsoever. If things had even a small piece of inherent being, then change would be impossible and these things would not be 'reborn.' Fortunately, this is an impossible mode of existence and hence things are reborn from moment-to-moment aka they change and are in a constant state of flux.

Rebirth requires craving.

SN12.23:4.6: I say that rebirth has a vital condition. And what is it?  You should say: ‘Continued existence.’ I say that continued existence has a vital condition. And what is it?  You should say: ‘Grasping.’ I say that grasping has a vital condition. And what is it?  You should say: ‘Craving.’

If Melinda wishes to be called Abigail, then after some time she gradually becomes known as Abigail. Then Abigail dies. Oddly, others will eventually also wish to name and be named "Abigail." The wish perpetuates, but who is Abigail?
Stepping back from wishes, we can also understand that there are conditions that are connected in arising.

SN12.21:1.8: When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.

And we can understand that there are conditions connected in cessation.

SN12.21:1.9: When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases.

So if Melinda wishes to be Abigail, Abigail arises. Then Abigail dies. Or Melinda could study the Noble Eightfold Path and be done with rebirth. Wishes are conditioned. And so is the Noble Eightfold Path. Perhaps Melinda should consider what Melinda wishes for...

SN12.21:1.13: When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease.  When choices cease, consciousness ceases. …  That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.”

Jati does not mean rebirth. The translation is wrong. Kind regards

Please discuss this point with Bhante Sujato. It is not good that we should disagree on the Dhamma. Your disagreement also extends to the New Pali English Concise Dictionary, which is concerning.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is lazyness a killer?
If so, in how far is it a killer, a quality that harms?
How does it arises, when arising? How does it vanish?
[Note that this isn't given/asked for trade, exchange, stakes or other layziness supporting means but for liberation]

There are some topics on this site already, it's more commonly called "sloth" -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=sloth+is%3Aquestion

Also I think it's not one of the ten fetters but is one of the five hindrances (so  I edited that tag).

You seemed disappointed that this answer didn't quote the Buddha's words, so I guess you intend this as a "reference request" question (i.e. where the answer is required to include references). And, your using the abhidhamma tag means, I suppose, that you might be looking for references from the abhidhamma and not only from suttas.

Once the Exalted One spoke to the Venerable Maha-Moggallana thus: "Are you drowsy, Moggallana? Are you drowsy, Moggallana?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
(1) "Well then, Moggallana, at whatever thought torpor has befallen you, to that thought you should not give attention, you should not dwell on it frequently. Then it is possible that, by so doing, torpor will disappear......................
AN7.58
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html

In Buddhism, this is called Sloth and torpor (Thina Middha). The fifth Mara.
It arises as a result of the first four Mara is subdued.
Buddha has given many ways to overcome this.
==============
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35806&p=543234&hilit=

The linked reference or discussion doesn't mention how to overcome it -- it doesn't say anything else about it either -- except that it gives the Pali translation thinamiddha, and the list of all "ten Maras".

Laziness arises due to lack of true knowledge or false knowledge. False knowledge can also demand mental alertness. Laziness is a definite killer. It destroys mental health necessary for liberation. Laziness encourages ignorance. One should be alert all the time if possible even in dreams.
One way to kill Laziness is to realize the true knowledge. A person who knows he is going to drown soon if he doesn't mend his ways will definitely try to save himself and become alert of the direction he is going on. He will mindfully change his direction and put himself on the righteous path of mental alertness.

Laziness is a killer.
For example, if seeing a destination on the other side of a road but are too lazy to look down the road for motor cars, this laziness is a killer.
Or if seeing a destination on the other side of a stream but are too lazy to look into the stream for crocodiles, this laziness is a killer.
Similarly, if reading in DN 1 about "here-&-now" but are too lazy to also read the words "existent being" & "self", laziness leads to thinking "here-&-now" is wrong view rather than "extinct being's self in the here-&-now" is wrong view.
Here, there is wrongly believing "Nibbana here-&-now" is wrong view rather than correctly understanding "self attaining Nibbana in the here-&-now" is wrong view.
Therefore, the mind never overcomes self-view, which the Buddha said was the "killer".

Yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's
  son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when he encountered him in
  a solitary place and killed him with a sharp knife: wasn't he even
  then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder
  or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.'"
"Yes, my friend."
"In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no
  regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their
  Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or
  disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self,
  or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as
  in form.
"He assumes feeling to be the self...
"He assumes perception to be the self...
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.
SN 22.85

DN 1 doesn't only warn against self-view. The end of it seems to me to be saying that the Tathagata doesn't attach to the "standpoint" i.e. the "basis of a view" i.e. diṭṭhiṭṭhānā -- by not grasping (misapprehending) even the superior understanding. Also I'm not sure why you think that's related to "laziness".

The Buddha never said "here & now" is a wrong view. There are countless suttas about here-&-now Dhamma and Nibbana. As for your comment, you are probably misinterpreting the sutta. In fact, it appears you are misreading the sutta.

A lazy does not know when his head has already been cut off, right?

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


text:
Can being a vegetarian actually be a temporary hindrance for some?
I am Buddhist, but not a strict vegetarian. When new acquaintances discover this they are often shocked and wonder, "How can this be??!!"
I'm going to try and explain my answer and see what others think. I contend that being a vegetarian can often act as a temporary hindrance for some Buddhists. They miss the forest for the trees.
One of my own preceding factors for learning about the Dharma was a decision to look deeply at my own consumption of meat and to explore the ethical and moral implications thereof in an honest and heartfelt way that I had never done before. I made a choice not to eat meat and became a vegetarian for five years more or less in parallel to my discovering and contemplating the Buddha Dharma, but to be clear I became a vegetarian strictly BEFORE I became a Buddhist or began practicing Buddha Dharma in earnest.
Over the ensuing years since then I have abandoned being a strict vegetarian and have continued and strengthened in my practice of the Buddha Dharma.
At first, the two seemed to coincide completely, but over time I found myself dwelling on being a vegetarian and being greatly disturbed to find other Buddhists who were not. Upon hearing that another member of the Sangha ate meat I would tend to distrust them and look at them as hypocrites at worst and misguided or lower than me in their ethical understanding of Buddha Dharma at best. I was a proselytizer for becoming a vegetarian to my buddhist/ non-buddhist friends alike and worried about what more I could do to convince others.
I grew despondent and anxious over my inability to convince others and suffered thinking about and empathizing with all the animals that were being killed on a daily/hourly/second-by-second basis merely to provide the flesh for the insatiable human demand for meat. When I looked at the scale of the problem, billions of animals dying and billions of people consuming their flesh in this carnivorous world I became hopeless that it would ever stop. I thought all of these thoughts indicated progress on the path as my heart opened up with compassion for all these animals.
But there was this nagging thought that I was actually not at all happy and was actually suffering thinking about all this in a repetitive way day after day. It occurred to me that this seemed inconsistent with what my teachers said that progress on the path - on a coarse level - is seen commensurate with an increase in happiness and a decrease in suffering.
Finally, it got bad enough that I more or less confessed all the above to my teacher and his response shocked me. He laughed with a deep and merry belly laugh and advised that I should get over being a vegetarian and the best way to do this was to eat a little meat.
He asked me how many animals I had saved today suffering at being a vegetarian and how many I would save tomorrow. He contended that my choice of being a vegetarian had not helped even one animal to escape from samsara and that I had yet to even begin to reconcile with the scale of the problem of samsara as opposed to the nearly insignificant in comparison problem of the human market for meat.
He told me I needed to let go of this attachment to being a vegetarian and congratulating myself on how ethical and moral I was compared to all those who were not and to get busy doing the actual work of becoming enlightened so that I may actually help all those animals.
When I look back I think my teacher was entirely correct. Being a vegetarian had become a hindrance for me. And since that time I think of all the people (including fellow Buddhists) who react with outrage at the idea that I am not a strict vegetarian and wonder if they are not all on a similar path that will require them to put down this hindrance in the future in order to make progress.
Of course, it is my responsibility to overcome this hindrance and make it temporary. No one can do this for me. It simply isn’t the case that being a vegetarian is necessarily a hindrance for some like there is some property of being a vegetarian that makes it impossible for some to progress. There is nothing inherent to being a vegetarian that makes one fall into the trap that I fell into. Rather, it was my own karma and ego that made it so and it is my responsibility to overcome this so that being a vegetarian will no longer be a hindrance for me just as it is not for OyaMist who has the most wonderful answer I could imagine and one I aspire to.
So there you have it... a question I've been meaning to ask for awhile and inspired by activity in this related post and some of the excellent answers and discussion within.
Can being a vegetarian actually be a temporary hindrance for some?

I have been vegetarian since 1/1/2000. It was originally a New Years Resolution, but it became a New Millenia Resolution. I figured that given impermanence it would not be too hard to keep. :D
That resolution arose out of an understanding that the mindless consumption of meat causes harm and death to many animals. Basically the resolution was simply to exercise restraint and not require the killing of sentient beings.
Only much later did I encounter the suttas, so I started reading about and keeping precepts much later. And at that point the following made perfect sense, since I had already decided it was good principle:

AN10.172:12.4: Not killing living creatures is a good principle.

I agree that being vegetarian can be a hindrance. Being "vegetarian" is a bit peculiar in that it has for some become a proclamation of virtue and merit that has somehow evolved into an obnoxious and contentious self-righteousness. And that would certainly be a hindrance.

MN8:12.33: ‘Others will be stubborn, but here we will not be stubborn.’

I have found that gentle restraint suffices in body, mind and speech. A quiet explanation that "I avoid eating meat" is enough. And if asked why, I just reply, "it seems kinder."
As my Zen Roshi used to say, "Road kill is acceptable".

Wonderful answer. It does not appear that being vegetarian is any kind of hindrance for you :)

It was recently explained to me the the ethical precepts aren't vows so..

A vow - I will never do X again as long as I live
A precept - I am working towards this. I might slip up. I might not be
  there yet. I might never get all the way. But I'm really trying

So regarding the first precept 'no killing' - You (we all) are working towards it. It might be you are vegetarian and trying to eat less dairy. It might be that you are a vegan and are trying not to harm insects. It might be that you are a meat eater and are trying to eat a bit less red meat. We are all working towards it and doing our best with it and going from where we are. But to rigidly and militantly be a vegetarian/vegan and feel very very fixed that that is who you are - well maybe that is a hindrance in some way. Certainly your sense of self might be quite strong around that.
That said I really don't think you should kill animals for food. However I'm quite happy to bend the 5th precept and have a glass of wine of the sofa some evenings. Go figure.

This question made me wonder about the doctrine around vows and self-views, and I found this -- Which are the Buddhist vows? --  which agrees with your answer. As it happens it is essentially a vow for me, as well as a habit, i.e. my wife asked me to remain vegetarian -- which is something else I often see, i.e. people influenced by their family or girlfriend etc. When she first became vegetarian she told me, "I've decided; but you can keep eating meat if you want to", but I felt she was was right, wasn't wrong.

@ChrisW. Funnily enough I became a vegetarian because I married a vegetarian. But as soon as I'd made that decision it felt like a real sense of ethical dissonance had been removed. A weight had lifted. So for me as well it's a vow. Right now I'm trying to move towards veganism but that really is a precept. I might not get all the way there but I want to move in that direction

Upon hearing that another member of the Sangha ate meat I would tend to distrust them and look at them as hypocrites at worst and misguided or lower than me in their ethical understanding of Buddha Dharma at best. I was a proselytizer for becoming a vegetarian to my buddhist/non-buddhist friends alike and worried about what more I could do to convince others.

IMO that's typical, a stereotype, of what you might call "a baby vegetarian": a "recent convert", a militant.
Seeing or describing other people as hypocrites seems like an obvious form of conceit (Māna).
Improving your own practice to behave like a better person is also conceit but of a more useful sort (as described in the Bhikkhuni Sutta).

I thought all of these thoughts indicated progress on the path as my heart opened up with compassion for all these animals.

I think that Theravada teaches that samvega may be the proper reaction.

He laughed with a deep and merry belly laugh and advised that I should get over being a vegetarian and the best way to do this was to eat a little meat.

Serves you right for confessing that. :-)
I assume that's vajrayana-like.

He told me I needed to let go of this attachment to being a vegetarian and congratulating myself on how ethical and moral I was compared to all those who were not and to get busy doing the actual work of becoming enlightened so that I may actually help all those animals.

I guess I see it as an attempt to be harmless -- which is good (i.e. permitted and not necessarily a vice to be abandoned) -- but just normal and not something which makes one better than other people. Given Dandavagga (Dhp X): Violence I like to assume that the sentiment is fairly universal.
If it's a practice which causes no remorse, then why not.

And since that time I think of all the people (including fellow Buddhists) who react with outrage at the idea that I am not a strict vegetarian and wonder if they are not all on a similar path that will require them to put down this hindrance in the future in order to make progress.

The little I remember of preaching vegetarianism is that it "benefits neither self nor others" (I may be a relatively ineffectual preacher, or maybe there's a more proper venue for it, so YMMV) -- it never occurs to me to try now, I see it as "not my business" when I eat with other people -- and I assume that people have heard the arguments already.
Some people as you may know call themselves "flexitarian" now -- e.g. they're vegetarian by choice or personal habit, and/but eat meat when that's convenient e.g. when they're a guest at someone else's house.
One young man I've met, for example, orders vegetarian for himself in a restaurant but might finish uneaten food (meat) off his father's plate if there are remains -- which I think is a bit like the Theravada doctrine.

"I assume that's vajrayana-like." -- I have no idea as I am not now nor have I ever been a student of the Vajrayana... rather, I've only studied Sutrayana in this lifetime anyway :)

See e.g. the paragraph of this answer which mentions "breaking taboos", or more in-depth in the last reference of this answer.

Ah, I can see where you might draw that inference, but the fact is that I have not taken any Vajrayana vows nor entered into such a guru-disciple relationship. The advice my teacher gave me I think was heartfelt and personally proscribed to help me, but I can imagine Theravada teachers giving the same advice. In other words, I don't think there was anything particularly tantric about it. Maybe Andrei will have a different perspective...

Well I said "-like", I didn't mean anything formal; it was just the idea of having a little bit as an antidote -- like a "don't beat them, join them" sort of idea. I think Andrei might have said once that a lot of Mahayana is skilful means for overcoming aversion .

The question presupposes that vegetarianism has some property that would be a hindrance to practice. Since it accords with the practice (see OyaMist's references) it would be strange if it was also a hindrance.
More importantly, what is this property? If you look can you find it? The whole point of Buddhism is to change the way you view the world, not change the world so that you may do what pleases you. That's why you are the focus of the practice.
When I first started along the path I would judge myself as superior because I'd found the right way. I told people they should meditate and looked down on those who didn't because they didn't control their minds - does this make meditation a hindrance? Should I then give up meditation? How many people had I led out of Samsara through my meditation? Not even myself!
That seems to be laying responsibility in the wrong place. It would be better if I continued to practice, to watch my thoughts and understand, than stop doing something of merit. In any specific context there may be a hindrance (you are starving and will die if you don't eat the frozen steak you found at the back of the freezer), that is why there is the concept of skilfulness (Buddhism is not a dogma) but in general, no, obviously meritorious actions that are in accord with the spirit and most basic reading of the precepts (don't kill, don't cause others to kill) are not a hindrance. It seems to me you're trying to justify and excuse something that is obviously not the case and I see no reason why you are the exception that proves the rule.

If someone grasps the water-snake in the wrong way -- "They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma." -- then perhaps it might be appropriate for their teacher to tell them to put it down again for a bit, to let go of it.

For what it is worth, I do think meditation can be a hindrance for some in pretty much the same way.

@ChrisW I agree, which is why I made the point about specifics, but as a general rule, no, Buddhist practice is not a hindrance to enlightenment or it wouldn't be part of the practice.

@YesheTenley If you knew the answer then why ask the question? Because the question isn't "is vegetarianism a hindrance" it's "is it a hindrance for some". You want your justification but you won't get it from me. Stop looking down on others, not eating meat has nothing to do with that. Where's the link?

I appreciate your perspective, thank you!

Feelings of superiority are always a problem, as are feelings of inferiority, but compassion for the suffering of our fellow sentient beings is always an indication of progress on the path (whichever you are on).
The Buddha taught the path to escape suffering: not desiring what you will not, or cannot have. This a dialectical formula, because even desiring to no longer desire things you cannot or will not have is a subtle desire that may not come to pass. In other words, you may slip up and fail at some time by desiring something you will not or cannot have, and then suffer because of that and more again because you have slipped up.
The compassion for the suffering of our fellow beings is not a desire. To want others to follow you is. Your teacher was correct to tell you to get over being a vegetarian because it was such an obstacle, but I doubt he said killing animals for their skin and flesh was cool all along the path. It was an expedient means to help you along your path.
I’ll leave you with this quote from the Surangama Sutra:

“The next important hindrance and allurement is the tendency of all sentient beings of all the six realms of existence to gratify their pride of egoism. To gain this one is prone to be unkind, to be unjust and cruel, to other sentient beings. This tendency lures them into the bondage of deaths and rebirth, but if this tendency can be controlled they will no longer be lured into this bondage for right control of mind will enable them to keep the Precept of kindness to all animate life. The reason for practicing dhyana and seeking to attain Samadhi is to escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you can so control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the bondage of the world's life. No matter how keen you may be mentally, no matter how much you may be able to practice dhyana, no matter to how high a degree of Samadhi you may attain, unless you have wholly annihilated all tendency to unkindness toward others, you will ultimately fall into the realms of existence where the evil ghosts dwell.
“There are three ranks of these ghosts: the highest are the mighty ghosts, the next are the Yaksha ghosts who fly in the air, and the lowest are the Raksha ghosts that live under the earth. Each of these ghosts has his double that disguises itself as having attained enlightenment. After my Parinirvana in the last kalpa these different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere deceiving people and teaching them that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment. But how can any faithful follower of the Lord Tathagata kill sentient life and eat the flesh?
“You of this great assembly ought to appreciate that those human beings who might become enlightened and attain Samadhi, because of eating meat, can only hope to attain the rank of a great Raksha and until the end of their enjoyment of it must sink into the never ceasing round of deaths and rebirths. They are not true disciples of Buddha. If they kill sentient beings and eat the flesh, they will not be able to escape from this triple world. Therefore, Ananda, next to teaching the people of the last kalpa to put away all sexual lust, you must teach them to put an end to all killing and brutal cruelty.
“If one is trying to practice dhyana and is still eating meat, he would be like a man closing his ears and shouting loudly and then asserting that he heard nothing. The more one conceals things, the more apparent they become. Pure and earnest bhikshus and Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas, when walking a narrow path, will never so much as tread on the growing grass beside the path. How can a bhikshu, who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself be living on the flesh of other sentient beings?
“Pure and earnest bhikshus, if they are true and sincere, will never wear clothing made of silk, nor wear boots made of leather because it involves the taking of life. Neither will they indulge in eating milk or cheese because thereby they are depriving the young animals of that which rightly belongs to them. It is only such true and sincere bhikshus who have repaid their karmic debts of previous lives, who will attain true emancipation, and who will no more be bound to wander to this triple world. To wear anything, or partake of anything for self-comfort, deceiving one's self as to the suffering it causes others or other sentient life, is to set up an affinity with that lower life which will draw them toward it. So all bhikshus must be very careful to live in all sincerity, refraining from even the appearance of unkindness to other life. It is such true hearted bhikshus who will attain a true emancipation. Even in one's speech and especially in one's teaching, one must practice kindness for no teaching that is unkind can be the true teaching of Buddha. Unkindness is the murderer of the life of Wisdom. This is the second admonition of the Lord Buddha as to the keeping of the Precepts.”

Oh? Is that so? Why?

“Literally” is an interesting word to use, as if your ignorance of the moral standards of others is proof that your moral position must be true. Well, if that is your standard, I guess it must be so—for you. But you continue on by denigrating ‘blinkered vegans’ who apparently, in your opinion, have no moral insights, nor apparently moral standing themselves. They posses merely hyperbolic speech. Or, some do have moral insights, and their speech, which apparently you are aware of, undermines your position.

But doesn’t your acknowledgement that at least none-‘blinkered’ vegans do hold the view that eating animal flesh and killing animals is equivalent, undermine your ‘argument’ that ‘literally’ no one holds this view? If not, why not? And since you are literally pushing a self-undermining argument, aren’t you the one being hyperbolic? My dictionary says that your use of “literally” in this fashion “is common and not at all new but has been frequently criticized as an illogical misuse. It is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis.”

But here is what the Buddha said about eating flesh and killing animals, regardless of source: (From the Eighth Chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra)

“Bodhisattvas, who are committed to being compassionate towards all sentient beings, and whose inner nature is compassion itself, choose to refrain from eating animal flesh. For a Bodhisattva to keep good integrity with the Dharma, he or she should not make any exceptions to the eating of animal flesh. He or she is not to eat the flesh of dogs, donkeys, buffaloes, horses, bulls, humans, or any other sentient being whether or not such flesh is generally eaten by some humans in some culture or society. Nor should a Bodhisattva eat flesh sold by others for monetary profit.”

Was the Buddha being hyperbolic—in your opinion, that is?

Some ideas are not as brilliant as they may initially seem to us. Maggots… is that what you would reduce us all to? Human maggots? Maggots exist because things die. Why do humans exist? To kill? I have no problem with people eating roadkill, and dead relatives, but that’s not what is being discussed. The issue is ending the life of other sentient beings which entails prolonged and intense suffering. They are not dying naturally, nor accidentally, but intentionally. And the moral concern as Buddhists is to never involve ourselves in creating suffering for others. Not even maggots do that.

I am not arguing anything. You are the only one arguing. Incessantly, it seems. I thought SE wasn’t for discussions—just answers to questions. Why do you have the need to argue against others responses? And, if you use an analogy to argue a point, as you did, responding to the allegory isn’t a straw-man argument. It’s not an argument. It’s a response.

Ah, it seems my interlocuteur, Yeshe Tenley, has deleted her comments to me. Just for the record, I wasn’t talking to myself. (Or was I? )

Any behavior/habit is a hindrance based on the degree of upadana. Conversely, developing habits with a light hand (non-attachment) will likely be more kusala.
Also, being mindful about cetana, karma and vipaka one can determine whether a certain behavior is upadana or kusala.
Generally speaking, it is helpful to abstract habits to the principles above, instead of myopic dwelling on the literal behavior/habit.

Godd householder,
if one thinks that purification if attained by food, such developes huge hindrances.
If one thinks that desiring plants as food doesn't kill, such developes huge hindrances.
If one maintains the wish to do as less as possible harm, feeling such is possible in choosing to abstain from meat, feeling involved in harm, yet not (because not seeing for now) by desire after non-meat, without having developed foolish extreme views, than going after vegetarian meals might be even kusala, but for the most cases, if not "accepting of what is given or near, views on food are signs of not seeing the danger in the world, not speaking of the path for escape.
If one seriously likes to abstain from getting involved in harmful food organisation, the Sublime Buddha gave his reputations so that one could live from alms if joining his Sangha or going near after it.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding nourishment and trade, but for escape from a wheel of no end]

Yes. Dalai Lama developed a health condition after a period of adhering to a vegetarian diet, so he ceased it upon his doctor's advice. The Buddha himself allegedly wasn't vegetarian either, he ate whatever alms were given to him. Vegetarianism wasn't really a huge part of Buddhism; it's more of a Mahayana thing & typically a strict vegetarian Buddhist is keeping to the diet so as to not break vows (e.g. Bodhisattva vows etc.)
When you adopt a vegetarian diet, the intention should be one of compassion towards sentient beings, and this includes compassion towards yourself; taking care of your own body and health. If you're able to take care of this body, it'll be easier for you to practice dharma.
If you're able to keep a vegetarian diet without causing any issues then its good to do so though. Its a privilege to be in a position where you can choose to not kill -
Many beings, both people and animals, are not so fortunate and have to kill to survive.
Your teacher is also right, the best thing you can do is seek to become liberated yourself so you stop contributing to the suffering of others.

Since there was an “update” to this question, I am providing a second answer, one that specifically responds to the OP’s update.
There are two parts to this answer, the first is to the suggestion that her teacher’s instruction to her conflict should be applied generally to others. In Buddhism, it is not the case that all teachings are universal one-size-fits-all comprehensive doctrines. This is why the Buddha always spoke to a particular interlocutor and why there are 84,000 teachings. The OP’s particular issue should not be applied universally, and certainly not by her, to everyone. Below, the Buddha explains this:

The Buddha said, “Son of my lineage, my teaching is not like that of
the naked ascetics. I, the Tathagata, established rules of discipline
in relation to specific individuals. Consequently, with a certain
purpose in mind, I did give permission to eat meat regarded as
suitable for consumption after it has been subjected to threefold
examination. In other contexts, I have proscribed ten kinds of meat.
And yet again, with someone else in mind, I have declared that it is
improper to consume meat of any kind, even of animals that have died
of natural causes. But I have affirmed, O Kashyapa, that henceforth,
all those who are close to me should abstain from meat. (
Mahaparinirvana Sutra: Abstaining From Eating Meat and Fish, Even Died
by Natural Causes)

While I chose this quote because of it’s relation to eating meat, my point is the Buddha’s description of the crafting of his responses for different groups and individuals, i.e., skillful means.
My second point is that the OP seems to have missed the point of her teacher’s instructions. The problem wasn’t that she was a vegetarian, it was that she felt superior to others, evidenced by her stated need to proselytize, and she was suffering because preaching to others is a sure way to suffer, as no one will listen to you unless you have standing, such as her respected teacher has with her. But, this meaning was missed, as evidenced by her statement in her update that:

“It might be possible that the thrust of this question is also
applicable to some vegans, fruitarians, pescatarians,
lacto-vegetarians, ovo-vegetarians, lacto-ovo-vegetarians, or other
strict idiosyncratic diets based upon resolving abstract moral
dilemmas in various ways.” (My emphasis)

The issue, as I said above, was not resolving moral issues. But I point to the characterization of animal suffering in that statement as ‘abstract’ because only one who is not on the receiving end of being killed could call it that.
This characterization shows that the OP still hasn’t seen that she is again manifesting superiority based upon her teacher’s instructions. In a sense, she is now proselytizing that when challenged by a moral issue one should overcome it by choosing the path that is least bothersome (i.e., hindering) to the one who is challenged by the issue (not the one affected by the issue). That’s not the way this needs to go in any case, ever, as it leads to what Hannah Arendt called “the banality of evil.”
But in the context of the question: “will feeling an overwhelming need to convince others that you are right, be a hinderance?” the only correct answer is yes, and the solution is to stop trying. You are your own master, no one else can be. The same goes for everyone else. You can and should share what you know, but never assume that everyone will hold it in the same high regard as you do.
In relation to being vegetarian or even vegan, the best way—in my lifelong experience—to convince anyone of those cuisines’ merit is not to try convincing them, but rather, to give them great-tasting food, in a familiar form, but absent the animal. Serving others is always a pleasure, never a hinderance. And food can speak for itself ☺
I am not responding to convince the OP of anything. I am concerned that leaving her question update stand without response may lead others into harm thinking that they should not follow the Buddha’s explicit statements about not eating animals.

Answering this not from a Buddhist but as a cook:
You are not bothering me by being a vegetarian. Most cooks I know either love making people happy or don't care at all. If I can help you in a spiritual way that's just bonus points. You would give me a good excuse to try different things or new recipes.
If I'm cooking professionally then making sure everyone eats well is part of the reason I'm there. The Muslims will get a pork-free meal, the allergics will get a meal without nuts/gluten/pineapple/whatever. In any group you will get a few vegetarians so catering for them is just par for the course(s).
Now for how you deal with that inside your head, I'll leave that to you and your teacher.
But as a cook: please let me know any dietary preferences, the impact on me is minimal either way.

Absolutely. I took a one-week vow of not eating meat to honor the unexpected death of my vegetarian/Buddhist friend. My avidly carnivorous husband, who does all the cooking around here, generously and enthusiastically cooked all kinds of new and tasty vegan and vegetarian meals.

I think being a vegetarian for the wrong reasons is definitely a problem.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is always a problem because conditions change and the behavior is not adjusted properly.
eg
A protection dog can be trained with underground fencing and it will stop wandering. The dog will display the desired behavior. However that dog is now delusional and not expected to protect the owner outside of the boundary even if there is no electricity and he is asked to come. Further training would be needed to overcome this.
One can have two very different systems occasionally giving you the same value.
There are countless ways of making a person do some particular behavior on an occasion, like being in a particular place at a particular time for some reason but if you then want to make him do something else many of the methods that produced the first result will no longer be able to produce the second result.
Being a vegetarian is imo a moderate lifestyle adjustment and requires moderately strong convictions. If the convictions are strong and misplaced then one is expected to do moderately stupid things quite often as this is expressed even in things like his diet.

Good answer I think.

This was a great discussion, I am pleased to have stumbled on it quite late as  a new user.
The answer history (and original question) does a great job of pointing out that vegetarian practice can create negative karma if the practitioner is judgy about it.
I wish there was an easy way to measure karma, because we generate so much negative karma both individually and collectively. The entire population of currently living humans, especially those in highly industrialized societies, are generating massive amounts of negative karma from "killing living creatures" through climate change and environmental destruction. This is one of the few things that may be different now as compared to in Buddha's time.
Purify furiously.


text:
Reference request: where is this text about abandoning hindrances from?
I found the text below on another site. However, it doesn't say whether the source is a specific sutta, commentaries or something else. Could someone show me the origin?

Six things are conducive to the abandonment of restlessness and remorse:

Knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures (Doctrine and Discipline);
Asking questions about them;
Familiarity with the Vinaya (the Code of Monastic Discipline, and for lay followers, with the principles of moral conduct);
Association with those mature in age and experience, who possess dignity, restraint and calm;
Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html

Source: Uddhacca,kukkucca by Piya Tan

It is most likely taken from the commentary to the satipatthana sutta, which has a similar list for each of the five hindrances. They are all worth reading:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html#hindrances


text:
Why is the 16th Karmapa visualized rather than the 17th Karmapa in Karma Kagyu?
From what I have seen observing Kagyu ceremonies, the 17th Karmapa (either of them, actually) is treated with great awe, respect and reverence. However in their daily rituals, Kagyu buddhists usually visualize the late 16th Karmapa. I assume this is the result of a certain prescription within Karma Kagyu but I was unable to find explanations of this on the Internet.
So, why do Kagyu followers visualize the late instead of the current holders of the Karmapa office? Does this have to do with the status of the late living Buddha as opposed to the living living Buddha?

No, it is not true that it is done by the prescription of the Kagyu. I asked one of the senior students at the Dagpo Kagyu Ling center near me, who is very close to the head of that center, so he is in a position to know the answer. He told me that people can choose who they visualize during their practice, either the 17th Karmapa, Thaye Dorje, or the 16th Karmapa, Rangdrung Rigpe Dorje. What is true, is that there exists a special Guru Yoga practice text for the 16th Karmapa and not yet a formal Guru Yoga practice text for the 17th Karmapa.

So, why do Kagyu followers visualize the late instead of the current holders of the Karmapa office? Does this have to do with the status of the late living Buddha as opposed to the living living Buddha?

Maybe because there's yet any conclusive resolution to the Karmapa controversy? But anyway, just to clarify, you probably meant living Tulkus, not living Buddhas, for there can't be multiple Buddhas existing in the same world system. After Gotama Buddha's passing, and after a long period, the next Buddha will be Metteyya, who's currently carrying out His bodhisattvic duties up there in the Tusita heaven. All others will be just teachers with various degrees of attainments from now until that time.

“He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise contemporaneously in one world-system—there is no such possibility.’1089 And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system—there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Wheel-turning Monarchs could arise contemporaneously in one world-system…It is possible that one Wheel-turning Monarch might arise in one worldsystem—there is such a possibility.’ ~~ MN 115 ~~

I think that the definition of a 'Buddha' varies according to each tradition. For traditions that considerate EBTs as their primary source, you definition is valid.

@BrianDíazFlores, MN 115 is not an EBT, but a universal text common to all Buddhist traditions. See this link for a long list of its equivalents from various sources: https://suttacentral.net/mn115/

EBT means Early Buddhist Text, which MN definitely is. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_texts

@AndreiVolkov, have u looked at its Chinese, Taisho, and Tibetan equivalents on the link I gave? No, MN 115 is not solely EBT. By the way, the Karmapa's never claimed himself to be a living Buddha. Feel free to provide proof and/or backup evidence saying the opposite.

I'm just saying "early buddhist text" means "a Buddhist text written relatively early". Can't argue with that, can you? Or do you think Majjhima Nikaya is not a buddhist text or that it was not written early?

And I'm just saying the Karmapas are no living Buddhas. Can't argue with that, can you? Or do you think there're a bunch of living Buddhas right here in our wold system?

Hi Santa! I was just trying to say that if a sect or tradition doesn't care about EBTs, they might use another definition for the word "Buddha". For instance, I've read some mahayana fellows who don't think that texts widely considered EBTs to be actually early nor authentic. And so, they use their own definition of 'Buddha'; one that might see Nagarjuna as a second Buddha, even within the current world-system. Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores, as mentioned, MN 115 has its parallels in so many texts in all traditions. So it'd be mistaken to say that this is solely an EBT thingy. Anyway, of course people are entitled to their own opinions and there's nothing we can do about that. We can only cite the sources and leave it up to them to decide what to believe.

@santa100 I'm not if we agree on this, but when I speak about EBTs, I'm not only referring to texts of the Pali Canon, but all those other texts and fragments that are parallel (in content and/or time of writing) to those of the Pali Canon. And as long as a tradition sees EBTs as a primary source of authority, then they might agree on your definition of "a Buddha". But not every tradition (AFAIK) holds EBTs in the same hierarchical position. Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores, ok, even given that position, my point still holds: that none of the Karmapa's have outright proclaimed that they are living Buddhas, nor any other masters in any other traditions. Therefore, it wouldn't make any sense at all to elevate some master to the level of a Buddha while s/he's never made that claim themselves!

@santa100 from my complete ignorance about the Tibetan traditions, I agree. Just to be clear, I was just offering my opinion about your statement: "there can't be multiple Buddhas existing in the same world system". Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores, no problem. Also just to be clear, "there can't be multiple Buddhas existing in the same world system" is not my statement. it's a statement proclaimed not only in the Pali system, but also in the Chinese, Taisho, AND the Tibetan system itself, as cited in the provided link previously.

The old unanswered question is: since not a single master in all traditions of the modern time claim themselves to be living Buddhas, isn't it a gross ignorance on the part of the followers to elevate their status to be the same as the Buddha??

Thank you for deepening my understanding. I used the term "living Buddha" since it was in a documentary I watched. Now I realize this is mostly a term the Chinese use in the context of Tibetan Buddhism. I would like to avoid arguing over terminology here since it is inconsequential in context of the asked question itself.

As to the question itself, I feel no answer was provided. According to my understanding, the Karmapa controversy leads people to believe in one of the Karmapas or both of them being authentic and it does not lead people to believe in the 16th Karmapa being the last authentic Karmapa and neither of the 17th Karmapas being authentic. Besides, it seems to me the Karmapa controversy was more or less resolved recently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmapa_controversy#Recent_developments). Therefore the Karmapa controversy is likely inconsequential as well.


text:
Are there "safe" practices to follow before meeting one's teacher?
I sincerely want to practice Tibetan Buddhism. It is a tradition which places great emphasis on one's relationship with their teacher. This makes a lot of sense to me. I plan to visit a Karma Kagyu centre near me when the coronavirus pandemic and associated quarantine measures subside and it is open to the public again. Are there any "safe" preliminary practices I can do in the meanwhile given that I have not formally taken refuge, received any empowerment or explanation and all my knowledge comes from literature? I am particularly unsure about whether it is a good idea to practice mantra meditation and mandala offerings without a teacher's guidance and my current view is that it is not.
For what it's worth I have been practicing breathing meditation and calm abiding (zazen) daily for a few months now as well as reading Buddhist texts and commentaries. But I don't feel like it has led to any non-intellectual understanding or insight yet.

Do not rush out trying to find a teacher. When you are ready the teacher will find you. Let the Buddha be your teacher and the Dharma be your medicine. When you do go to the center consider them as Sangha and learn how to engage them and see what you can learn. Be mindful of your own expectations and excitement for what that meeting will be like.
It is important to integrate the teachings in a heartfelt and sincere way. Intellectual understanding is important, but not nearly sufficient. Without actually practicing the teachings mere intellectual understanding can do nothing to help us. It is like being a chemist and understanding perfectly well the chemical mechanism of a medicinal drug. Unless one actually takes the medicine - not just understands how it works - there will be no hope of benefiting from it.
As for what practices to start out with... have you tried cultivating the four immeasurables as the Buddha instructed? The dharma is safe and you should feel free to practice it to your best understanding. I would begin with mindfulness, cherishing others, reducing or at least recognizing the non-virtuous minds, lay vows/practices and understanding what refuge is and means along with the four immeasurables.


text:
Is there a pali term for "natural concentration"?
In the book, "Handbook for mankind" Buddhadhasa Bikkhu describes two types of concentration:

One "as a result of organized practice", which he refers to as vipassana-dhura, and is mentioned in post-tipitaka commentaries.
One that "come about naturally".

In the text, there are no pali words given for the latter, and the only reference given is that it is described in the Tipitaka.
My questions are,

Is there a name in pali for the latter type?
Are there specific descriptions of the second type of concentration somewhere in the tipitaka or elsewhere?

(Please note that i'm not asking for the correctness, efficacy, or other evaluations of the statements above. This is primarily a reference request).

I used to study Ajahn Buddhadasa very comprehensively. However, Handbook For Mankind was a book I was never partial towards. While it contains many basic teachings, I always found the verbal style of delivery difficult or abrasive to read. However, merely browsing and offering an answer:

The book is from 1956 lectures the Venerable Buddhadasa Bhikkhu gave to a group of prospective judges. Therefore, the two chapters on meditation are addressed to laypeople.
The chapter on "Nature Method" concludes: "Summing up, natural concentration and insight, which enable a person to attain the Path and the Fruit, consist in verifying all day and every day the truth of the statement that nothing is worth getting or being."
The statement: "nothing is worth getting or being" essentially comes from MN 37. It is a statement of Right Understanding: Samma Ditthi.
In his book Heartwood From The Bo Tree, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa said about concentration: "As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has correct samadhi."
To conclude, the teachings above by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa accord with the following sutta teachings about samadhi:

sattahaṅgehi cittassa ekaggatā parikkhatā sammādiṭṭhi pubbaṅgamā: mind with single intent equipped with seven factors in use where right view is the leader (MN 117)
samādhindriyaṃ vossaggārammaṇaṃ: faculty of concentration reliant upon letting go (SN 48.10)
samādhisambojjhaṅgaṃ vivekanissitaṃ virāganissitaṃ nirodhanissitaṃ vossaggapariṇāmiṃ: concentration factor of enlightenment that relies on solitude, dispassion & cessation maturing as letting go (MN 118).

In summary, "natural concentration" means "concentration without craving".

Concentration (ekaggatā), the mental focus on one object to the exclusion of all other objects is a universal mental state applicable to all mental states. I have concentration even when I type this answer.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

For the benefit of all I would like to share my experience. Organized Concentration can be attained through practice. We can focus on the five aggregates or Truths and thus achieve concentration.
But natural concentration is also interesting. You find it everywhere. As child I craved for entertainment. I was highly concentrated while watching cartoon on TV. So much so that any disturbance was highly opposed.  If you have lost ability to naturally concentrate then the good news is that you can regain that strength. You need to discover your passion.Know what you really want and give your heart to it.
I find myself concentrated when things do not work and I become obsessed with trying to fix it. I do not like broken things. That is my passion now a days. I become naturally concentrated...I am effortless in trying to concentrate. That is what I think is the meaning of natural concentration.

Thanks for your answer. Unfortunately, i don't see how this answers either of my questions.

You asked for reference. Sorry I don't have. You can vote to close the answer if it doesn't help in anyway.

Users can't vote-to-close answers (only questions) -- but users can "flag" an answer for a moderator (who can delete answers). And users with a reputation of 4000 or higher can vote to delete downvoted answers.


text:
Does Vajrayana accept the idea that Buddha placed Lord Yama (a supposed Bodhisattva) in charge of the hell realms to ensure karmic retribution?
In reading this answer to another question I came across this link which is seemingly a Tibetan Buddhist site proclaiming the following:

In Buddhism the two beings that are often confused with the Christian
  concept of the devil, Yama and Mara, are also Bodhisattvas. Lord
  Yama’s job is to make sure beings receive the appropriate karmic
  retribution in the appropriate hell realm.

Which strikes me as completely antithetical to Buddhism, the Dharma, the Bodhisattva way of life, and well in just about every sense wrong and even dangerous idea about how karma works. This is certainly never been taught to me in the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and I would be quite shocked if any of my teachers (in the lineage of His Holiness the Dalai Lama) accepted any of this.
As a student of Tibetan Buddhism, but not specifically the Vajrayana I would like to know if there is any defense of this from the viewpoint of Vajrayana? Does anyone follow this way of thinking?
Personally, I would file this under don't believe everything you read purporting to be Buddha Dharma on the internet. There are ignorant people out there making all kinds of bellicose claims and surrounding themselves in the iconography and material trappings of Tibetan Buddhist culture all the while being shockingly ignorant of Buddha Dharma. This seems to me to be one of them.

There's more from the same organisation at http://holyvajrasana.org/lineage/h-h-dorje-chang-buddha-iii and so on.

You are going wrong direction and wrong question. This question not change your life. Asking questions according your experience. For example Conflict Habit
Practice

Let me refer you to The Lamp of Wisdom That Illuminates the Darkness of Ignorance, also known as The Voyage to the Hell of the Exalted Lady Choijid, also known as Tale of Choijid Dakini - a story that was popular in 16th century Tibet, "about virtue, sin and the afterlife, told through a 37-year-old woman’s encounter with Lord Yama in hell."

Čoyijid dagini had left life before the time allotted to her. After her soul had gone to hell and there witnessed the judgment of Erlig qaγans, the prince of hell, she returned to earth and into her mortal cover to report and write down what she had seen and experienced in hell. The judgment of Erlig qaγan serves to illustrate the Buddhist teaching that those who have lived a virtuous life are happily reborn, while sinful people have to suffer and suffer inferior existence later in life. Neither the author nor the exact time of origin of this story are known, but it is known that it was published in block print in 1534 in Tibetan. There are several Mongolian translations of this block print, some of which contain changes and additions. What is striking is the change in the name "sinful Gelung" (monk) to sinful Gesgüi "(supervisor at prayer events). So by addressing a higher Lamarang, the narrative got something of a socially critical tendency. Episodes were also inserted in which Erlig qaγan punished high lamas and princes hard for their sins.

Unfortunately, I can't find this story in English, but I have it in Russian and believe me, "Lord Yama’s job" is described in all possible details.

Not to discredit her outrightly; but this very much reminds me of the boy who met with ninja turtles in a near-death experience, or the hyper-realistic dream I had about having a meaningful relationship with a friend from outer space. Perhaps they are all very real -- as real as samsara itself? ;-)

This is probably borrowed from Hinduism.

The question was not at all “is Yama the ruler of hell?”

Yama is a known God of the lower realm in all forms of Buddhism, I am not knowledgeable about particularly Vajrayana, but I guess they do accept him, there is no reason why not, when he mentioned in all of the sutras
Yama is the God that humans meets when they die, because he rules Karma
I am not sure whats your issue with that
Hope this help

Yama is the; Demon or lord of death of the Bhavacakra. Basically; He's the monkey stuck in the tar trap sutta. Grasp the wheel yourself and make Yama happy he can then go be Kurukulla and protect the dhamma like he's supposed to do.

In meditation who do you obey if not a yama a mara etc.? When I got sit at a temple Mara, Yama, etc. frequently try to appear as the nose consciousness.
The most difficult consciousness of the six consciousnesses to conquer that allows one not to ever fall back into birth as an animal.
How many know that those meals only lead to eating corpses, blood, and the feces of all of those that have failed to attain?
Even in Satori those beings live; replacing empty taste with any taste, replacing empty sight with any sight etc free the eye, the ear, the nose, the mouth and tactile sensation and where oh where could they possibly find a foothold other than right back to their own source of dependent origination striking them like a thunder bolt.
However, deluded? They think that such attack came from oneself and not from the kamma of them self and the company they keep. Such is the nature of Mara's, Yama's and their armies.
Conquer one's own entire wheel of life; many are under the mistaken impression that they are supposed to escape it. After it is conquered; make no mistake... another wheel not one's own; is on the way... and they expect you to conquer it for them just the same as you did yours.
HA! Sadhu! Sadhu!


text:
I have forgotten how to live
The previous years of my life feels like a dream. I was happily living, consumed with studies, learning things, watching youtube and stuff, enjoying a lot, mind was busy in various entertaining stuffs. But, I don't know how it started, but all those passions are waning. Its almost as if I've forgotten how to live. Live as in the previous ways of my living. I am now trying to find a way to live as I've lived in the past but can't seem to go back to the old ways. I mean I want to find something fun for my mind as I had in the past but I just cant bring up enough passion.
What is happening to me ?

Perhaps this question may help you: What does Buddhism say about boredom?

Disenchantment to what actually does not really lead to long joy and/orr requires a lot of suffering for oneself or others, or did so in the past (getting had giving as condition)? In that case, mudita,  and maybe Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life gives a more then worthy alternativ. Joy and luck isn't something lasting, as all kinds of phenomena in the world, good householder.

I cannot of course say what is happening with you. But here is a thought, since you have used the tag of impermanence for this question (and quite correctly, I think).
Our minds are addicted to sensations- craving of pleasurable sensations and aversion to painful sensations. The addiction is to react, depending on which type of sensation one is experienceing, which changes from time to time (hence the impermanence in the subtlest form). An addicted mind, like an addict, grows accustomed to a high- once staisfied with one drug (here 'fun'), it wants another. Addict wants a high and once that is satisfied, it will want another high. This wanting of high (craving) is a conditioned pattern of mind, at the deepest level- conditioned because of our ignorance to the impermanent nature of phenomenon.
What you thought of as fun, is now boring. But the mind is addicted to 'fun'. So now it is in a bad mood since it can't find something new, a new fun thing to do. Don't get me wrong, having fun is important. The obsession is harmful- we loose the balance of mind.

First of all, you haven't forgotten how to live. Do not be discouraged. The fact that you have that seen how hollow everything is sounds to me like a moment of insight.
It might be that you feel you have forgotten what really matters. But maybe you are also beginning to understand that you never actually understood what really matters.
What we know intellectually, is one thing - but we also must ask ourselves, whenever we learn something - how does it change my world?
If I really know that everything is transient like the form taken in a wisp of incense smoke, then it's hard for me to develop an attachment to their permanence, right?
So laziness.
In some schools of Buddhism, there are three types of laziness - they are opposite to the three types of effort.

The first is apathy lethargy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLexgOxsZu0
The second is a lack of transvaluation: finding no pleasure in doing what is good, or finding pleasure in doing what is bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT_nvWreIhg
The last a lack of confidence or belief in your ability to do good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDqmJEWOJRI

It is this last one which is the most harmful to our path-treading, as if we believe we cannot do it, or that it's impossible, we end up living in a shit world with no escape.
The direct opponent to laziness is effort, with the corresponding antidotes to the 3 above.
But the underlying cause of laziness is wrong view. If we are able to see the world as it is, then the natural path of least resistance is to follow the path, so developing your insight into the nature of reality is fundamental to changing the way in which you behave within it.