text:
Recalling Neither Perception nor Non-Perception for Nimittas
In the state known as neither perception nor non-perception, it seems impossible to cognize the relative particulates that allow it to occur as an event, but one can emerge mindfully from its attainment, as is stated in the Anupada Sutta. Hence, there is a beginning and an end to the event. In this way, I can only define it by what is absent rather than what is present - similar to exiting a noisy nightclub and resting in the dead of the night, then entering the nightclub again, taking with me only the memory of the still night.

Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment.
Anupada Sutta

This leaves a trace-memory of the event that can be recalled, but even that itself is tenuous for two reasons, 1) by its very definition (neither perception nor non-perception) - from beginning to end - its particulates are so subtle, so indistinct that one can not confidently declare "I am emerged in neither perception nor non-percpetion". 2. The recall itself poses some accuracy issues, that since it is now in the memory, it is open to all sorts of interpretations including how I have chosen to define it here.
In the instance of neither perception nor non-perception, it seems the ability to discern and cognize are nimittas that are absent. Please correct me?
Is it sufficient for the mind to have experienced the presence of neither perception nor non-perception or must it be investigated further?

I wouldn't dismiss the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception too casually.
The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception separates the dimension of nothingness from the cessation of perception of feeling. Perception originates from contact, so the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is the subtlest dimension for understanding that origination.  The Buddha's instruction to Moggallāna underscores the importance of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Moggallāna declares:

SN40.8:1.7: While I was in that meditation, perceptions and attentions accompanied by the dimension of nothingness beset me.  Then the Buddha came up to me with his psychic power and said,
SN40.8:2.2: ‘Moggallāna, Moggallāna!
Don’t neglect the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception,
brahmin! Settle your mind in the dimension of neither perception nor
non-perception; unify your mind and immerse it in the dimension of
neither perception nor non-perception.’

I'd argue that its largely irrelevant.  The content of meditative experience really has no bearing on ones practice.  The insight that is attained when one emerges from those states is what matters.  The only value of truly deep meditative absorption is that it allows for equally deep vipassana.

Seeing the suffering caused by attachment to the body is the insight right there, but one can only tread that ground so many times. Can you add anything more?

Well, when you come out of the perception/non perception, what do you experience?  Any answer anyone can give you is essentially worthless compared to that.

And for the record, practically speaking, attachment to the body pretty much evaporates even after the first jhana.  I'd go so far as to say that it can't even be accessed while feelings of self preservation exist.

Thank you. I downvoted your answer because of its dismissive tone and the narrow, dried and dessicated suggestion of 'doing vipassana'.

Samatha practice is only a prelude to vipassana practice.  This was the Buddha's distinguishing discovery.   It's what separates him from his first two teachers.  I'm not trying to be a jerk, but unless you are applying a purified mind to some kind of object - a koan, a defilement, the morning star, whatever - you are wasting your samatha work.

The sutta is peculiar

Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him.

Qualities here is 'dhammā', plural hence the 'ā'
The sutta is peculiar because it does not say what those dhammā are as it does for the other attainmemts as in;

Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of nothingness — the perception of the dimension of nothingness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers.

This sutta simply doesn't say what those qualities are in the case of neither perception nor non-perception and the expression is reduced to

So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play.

I can only speculate as to why the naming of the dhammā is omitted but the point is that there are dhammā which can be ferreted out one-by-one & named and dispassion towards those dhammā ought to be developed.

The property of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is to be reached as a remnant-of-fabrications [sankharā] attainment.

BTW;

As for these two dimensions — the attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception & the attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception — I tell you that they are to be rightly explained by those monks who are meditators, skilled in attaining, skilled in attaining & emerging, who have attained & emerged in dependence on them.”

I would also say that it is largely irrelevant, given the keywords you’ve listed as constraints for your requested answer. However, I would like to make a correction to the phrasing of your question in that it is not “the ability to discern and cognize... that are absent” but discernment and cognition that are absent, i.e., the faculty is there, but quiescent. It isn’t a meaningless difference, and is important in tantrayana practices.
In practice, this is a state in which there is just spaciousness. No thought of a meditator meditating, or of accomplishment, enlightenment, wisdom, perfection, nor anything else. No thoughts arise. Sensations are no longer attended to, not because one stops attending to them, but because that discriminating response is simply no longer functioning. If you turn your mind toward such a sensation, it will be actively apperceived as a sensation of a particular type, so the mind must rest as it is: spaciousness—but not just empty dead space. Instead, one reaches a stage where there is just clear lucidity, in the sense of reflexive knowing that we can also call clarity. This means our normal perspective evaporates. Time no longer passes. There is not even a need for the concept of "now." Just illumination without limit. Beyond this, there can be only poetry.
As Jigme Lingpa, ending with a quote from the “Perfected Skill of the Lion” tantra, puts it:

Thus, according to the tradition of this vehicle, the nature of the mind is—from the very beginning—great natural liberation. Recognizing that is called “awareness.” By maintaining this continuity, the state of Buddhahood will be directly realized, which is why this path is more expeditious than any other. In this way [practitioners] will gain inspiration.

In addition, [the instructions] on clarifying doubt and subduing hinderances are as follows. While maintaining the continuity of the great, indwelling fundamental nature, if one thinks that the nature of this awareness is empty, the one ascribing emptiness to this is the intellect, which has a focal point. The way the meditative concentration with a focal point does not produce Buddhahood is as stated in the “Perfected Skill of the Lion” tantra:

“The meaning of the nature of phenomena cannot be seen through meditation with concentration. The samādhi of one’s own appearances eludes the direction of concentration. Free from elaboration, the nature of phenomena is equal to the limits of space. All mental considerations are devoid of conceptual fixation with objects. The dharmakāya Buddha free from the four extremes, such as existing or not, is one's own awareness” (“The Yeshe Lama,” page 5)

This is very helpful. I'm familiar with the expansion of space such that it no longer interests my mind, but there is not even any sense of spaciousness - its dimensionless but with a pristine and unassuming, ordinary clarity. It's neither here nor there nor here and there nor nowhere. I've been dropping into this for about 12 months. Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree with the labeling of neither perception nor non-perception.

There is a pattern: after exiting these things, my mind becomes turbulent and upset and all sorts of emotional difficulties arise until such time I am able to manage them. When things have calmed down I can enter into these events again and the whole thing performs the same cycle.

You should be directing your mind to the factors that give rise to these difficulties.  All you are doing in samatha is suppressing them temporarily.  This is important - it allows you to effectively examine them - but unless you examine them, they will continue to arise.

@user20010 - For sure! Satipatthana throughout the day informs me of the conditions from which they occur. Just meditating is pointless if one cannot bring those meditative qualities into everyday life. The question was targeted and does not represent the entirety of my practice. I hope that helps. Kind regards.


text:
What is before spring?
Genjokoan says

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression
complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call
winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

Dogen says here that spring is not after winter, but there is still "before" and "after", which is included in spring, and spring is independent of them. etc.

If not the beginning of spring, what is before spring? Not winter.

And if - likewise - the end of life is discontinuous with the present, does that mean life does not end when I only exist in the present?

Dogen is said to have said:

Time itself is being, and all being is time.
But what does “is” mean, and how does it help form the answer being searched for by the OP?

In the question, the OP interprets what Dogen said, in the text that the OP quoted, as meaning:

Dogen says here that spring is not after winter, but there is still "before" and "after", which is included in spring, and spring is independent of them. etc.

But Dogen said:

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

Lets deal with the first two assertions, and leave the metaphor for a moment. In the quote from Dogen’s “Uji,” there is the line:

Time is not separate from you, and as you are present, time does not go away.

We are so used to being told what to think, we have forgotten what it means to be. I like to ask of others, “Today, we know that the heart pumps blood, but before humans invented the water pump, what was the heart for?”
Of course, if we give it some time, and don’t just shut the question out of our thoughts, we all know what the heart is for—and it’s not to be a pump. Why? Because before we were told what it was, we all could experience it ourselves—and we still do. It’s just that when we are confronted today with a question, we can’t think of much beyond the scientific facts, like “it pumps blood,” because our personal experience is always held to be of secondary importance to what we’ve been told to know, and therefore what to think.
So, if I ask you now “what is time?” looking for your experience of time, rather than the scientific definition of time, what might it be? So I ask you, what is time?
Go ahead, take your time.

Time is not separate from you, and as you are present, time does not go away.

This should just hammer it home for you. While you are here in this life, time is not separate from you—it’s your time—it’s not clock time, it’s not a stream of time flowing past you, its not a static road that you travel, because it is nothing other than you—your being here. So time and being are the same—the “is” between them is merely saying these two concepts mean exactly the same thing, as the sentence: “That is James” means, when you are pointing your finger at me.
So the takeaway is: there is no ‘Time’, there is only your time and my time, and the time of all other manifested things. You don’t have to be real, the way we think Time is real, but you’re not nothing either. You are being-time: manifested forms of time that we experience as our being here.
So that is Dogen’s assertion first quoted by the OP. But did you notice that if that is what time is, then there is nothing for us to move through, and nothing that moves past us? We ‘flow´ through our ‘selves’—our time, but not through time ‘itself’ because there is no such thing. Thats why Dogen says:

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment.”

We flow through our being, the way a play flows through its script—in its own time. But our being is always complete now—it can’t come to be, or cease to be in the way scientists would frame it as a passage of events over ‘Time’.
So now, you are probably lost in Space, not knowing what to think. So don’t think. Pay attention to what is right now in each moment. As Dogen points out:

Each moment is all being, is the entire world. Reflect now whether any being or any world is left out of the present moment.

What is a moment? Don’t fall back into thinking about clock-time! I prefer to use the word “vignette” because when I clearly  attend to what is, I notice that there is always a history hanging about—the ‘causes’ and ‘conditions’, seasoned with a bit of serendipity, that ‘brought me’ metaphorically speaking, to now. But its just history, a story about how I got here, and it’s just a story, because it isn’t still happening. In fact—the fact of what I experience—it isn’t still happening, and there isn’t any ‘Time’ in which it can be hiding out! This moment is all there is. But this moment—this Now—is not mine alone.
But there is more! My time is still unfolding—because I’m still here. So there is an expectation in this moment of still more ‘to come’—it’s another story, perhaps a dream, or just a job I ‘have’ to get done. Or maybe its a refusal to accept what is, and a story of a victim is in it’s place in my dream.
And then I notice that the causes and conditions are not mine alone, but entail and are indicative of other vignettes, other being-times, intricately woven into this moment now, because mine is not the only vignette playing out. As Dogen says:

In essence, all things in the entire world are linked with one another as moments. Because all moments are the time-being, they are your time-being.

This now—this moment—contains all the vignettes of every ‘thing’ and every ‘body’ all in this intricately woven now. And what ‘was’ are just stories, and what ‘will be’ are just dreams, because there isn’t ‘what is past’, and there isn’t ‘what will be’, there is just now, whole and complete. Nothing real ‘in and of itself’, but much more than the back story, and much more than the dream of what is to become, it’s what appears to be, now.
This is why Dogen says:

They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

When I am ‘in’ (experiencing) Winter, I call it “Winter,” not “Spring,” and not “the “beginning of Spring.” This doesn’t mean that there are not causes and conditions now that may mature as the being of “Spring,” but when it is Spring, I call it “Spring,” and not the “end of Winter,” because that is just a story I tell myself about what was the case once upon a time.
There is no moment of transition for events to happen in. There is only this, now, and nothing else (remembering that “this” is a woven whole of every being-time all at once this).
So, “Winter,” in our habitual and shared way of seeing things in this Sahā world, comes before Spring, but never will you be in Winter while you are in Spring, nor will you ever be in a moment when there is a transition from one to another, for that moment can be neither.
And none of this stops anyone from weaving stories of cause and effects, natural laws to be followed by things, and those saving graces of ‘chance’ and ‘very long periods of timé, and it works to a certain point, allowing us to note tendencies and habits, allowing us to predict the weather, or how long a computer memory chip might take to respond to a query about its contents. That is, until we pay attention to what is truly present now and we cannot find what was and what might be fully present too.
Even scientists today no longer believe that Time is a thing.

you seem to say - early in the answer - that i am wrong in my interpretation, but it's not clear what you think i'm mistaken on? and i think i can include quotes from G. which show i'm just paraphrasing different parts of the argument therein

When reading the words of an enlightened being, we can only interpret their meaning. It's not that we need an understanding of the ‘subject’ in order to know their true meaning. On the contrary, it’s that we need to not have an understanding that stands in the way. (1/5)

If we have sufficient meditative insights, we can hear the meaning, like it is a musical score, guided by our own insights, that are like the possible individual notes that can be arranged in a composition. (2/5)

If we only study words, without ever gaining the necessary insights, we are forever outside the music hall and we can only interpret what was meant. And yet, until our enlightenment matches that of the enlightened being we are trying to listen to, we will surely miss some of the complexity in the song. (3/5)

Personally, I don’t know of a single Enlightened Western translator (my apologies to those that are), and so the words of someone like Dōgen that I can read in a language other than his native Japanese, is already an interpretation. Onto this, I cast my own. (4/5)

So, I always take what we students say, to be interpretations. I don’t mean that they are necessarily wrong, I am just reminding myself not to fix an understanding in my mind that will stand in the way of hearing the real music. (5/5)

This idea is elaborated in Dogen's work called "Uji" (The Time-Being).
Here I will paste some bits and pieces:

Time itself is being, and all being is time.
Each moment is all being, is the entire world. Reflect now whether any being or any world is left out of the present moment.
In essence, all things in the entire world are linked with one another as moments. Because all moments are the time-being, they are your time-being.
Time is not separate from you, and as you are present, time does not go away.
Do not think that time merely flies away. Do not see flying away as the only function of time. If time merely flies away, you would be separated from time.
The time-being has the quality of flowing. So-called today flows into tomorrow.
You may suppose that time is only passing away, and not understand that time never arrives.
People only see time's coming and going, and do not thoroughly
understand that the time-being abides in each moment.
Do not think flowing is like wind and rain moving from east to west. The entire world is not unchangeable, is not immovable. It flows. Flowing is like spring. Spring with all its numerous aspects is called flowing. When spring flows there is nothing outside of spring. Study this in detail. Spring invariably flows through spring. Although flowing itself is not spring, flowing occurs throughout spring. Thus, flowing is completed at just this moment of spring. Examine this thoroughly, coming and going. In your study of flowing, if you imagine the objective to be outside yourself and that you flow and move through hundreds and thousands of worlds, for hundreds, thousands, and myriads of eons, you have not devotedly studied the buddha way.

What does this all mean? It means there is no hidden essence or identity that  would pass from the past into the future. When milk goes sour and "turns into" yogurt, or firewood burns out and "turns into" ash, or spring ends and summer starts, or "a person dies" - we habitually assume that something, some entity, stays itself throughout all phases and gets transferred from point A to point B to point C. However in reality there is no such thing. Identity is our imputation.
The young person, the old person, and the corpse are not the same entity - they are like the dominos falling in succession, like a moving wave. Similarly, the spring and summer are not the same entity, they are phases of flowing like the dominos in a chain.
Entire world is flowing like that, and most importantly the illusion that "I am staying the same as the time flows" or "I am moving through time while staying myself" - is the illusion of self. Our mind and our experience is part of the flow.
This is why, in Genjokoan:

It is a custom in Buddhism not to say that life turns into death. This is why we call it “unborn”. And it is an established Buddhist teaching since Gautama Buddha that death does not turn into life. This is why we call it “undying”. Life is an instantaneous situation, and death is also an instantaneous situation.

Hmmm... That's interesting.

so what is before spring? its beginning?

@anon - try to think of it in fractal terms: within the ever-changing aspects of form, we concretize certain particularities of those changes, so winter becomes winter, spring becomes spring, and self-identity becomes self-identity, but they're only fragments of a grand spectacle and that grand spectacle does not fit comfortably within the confines of the conditioned mind.

so spring is before spring?

Spring is just a discrete concept we impute on top of a continuous process. Spring is a human convention - therefore it doesn't have real ontological beginning and end. This is why you are having trouble finding and defining the ends :)

everything is conventional. does that mean we can't ask what is before or after anything?

@anon - Try to isolate the characteristics in this video and name them to your hearts content

i like the analogy @NeuroMax but it is only an analogy. does spring / the fractal have a beginning and end to its before and after? instead of saying nothing is before and after (permanence?) you seem to be saying nothing begins or ends (momentariness?). how do these two truth combine?

@anon - searching for beginnings and endings can be an interesting practice!

sorry if i seem awkward and unhelpful, just not getting quite getting it. dw

@anon - not getting it is a good place to get what you're not getting. Maybe rest in that not getting it mind set and see what happens.

@anon, before and after are fine, point is it's not a previous version of the same thing, nor is it an entirely different thing. "Thing" is an imputation.

Blue mountains are constantly walking.

When spring comes the grass grows.. by itself.
"Before him the dead trees come to life."
The Buddhist approach is to take the middle path, between eternalism and a soul, and nihilism where everything ends at death. We are never isolated individuals: we blurred into existence, as part of someone elses body, cared for through our vulnerability, and absolutely requiring our community-developed language, to even have the word 'self'.
We are built out of the lives of others, and others will take up the masks and costumes that we think we are, until we realise we can put them down. You never are the masks and costumes, you were something that doesn't die, all along.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Vaccination, Ethics and Morals
During the present times, there is an excessive need to vaccinate people, but what I have noticed is that when one wishes to scrutinize this action, when one wants to ask viable, pertinent and objective questions regarding vaccination those emotionally intelligent, explorative endeavours are often shutdown and the person given the label of 'anti vaxxer' and 'conspiracy theorist'; the freedom to engage in a healthy dialogue is severely compromised. At the same time, I respect that people are afraid and in need to find a solution to the current issue.

In the sutras, we can find analogies that describe the Buddha as the doctor, knowledge of the Dharma as the medicine, monastics as the nursing staff, and all people as the patients. According to this medical analogy, Buddhism is considered a medication with a broad meaning - a medication that can cure the ailments in all aspects of life. In general, but with exceptions, Western medicine functions within a much smaller framework. Western medicine typically approaches illness through physical symptoms. This approach tends to temporarily reduce the suffering and remove the symptoms for a period, but a lack of symptoms does not mean that the root cause has been identified and removed. Therefore, the complete elimination of the disease has not occurred. Buddhism offers patients not only symptomatic relief, but also spiritual guidance to ensure overall and long-lasting health.
While Western researchers have conducted massive studies on pathology,
pharmacology, immunology, and anatomy, enabling them to develop more
sophisticated medical techniques, scientists still doubt that religion
can help explain the cause of a disease. Without validating the role
of religion in disease, scientists remain quite distant from the
definition of disease, its causes, and its treatments as understood
from a religious perspective. According to Buddhism, it is not enough
to approach to medicine in a manner that simply eradicates symptoms;
the spiritual aspect of disease and its mind-based causes and remedies
must be the primary consideration.
Taken from the Buddhist Academy

As a practising Buddhist, it's my view that a person should uphold the ultimate position on what they choose to accept into their body. However, I'm prepared to look at this from other viewpoints.
From a Buddhist perspective, should choosing to have a vaccine under these interesting but challenging times be a discernment that concerns just our own body, or a discernment that should include others too?
From a Buddhist perspective, how does one reconcile with the huge moral and ethical shortcomings that allow pharmaceutical companies to indemnify themselves from any Ill effects caused by vaccination?

I would like to invite any down-voters to try to provide an answer. As I said in the question, I'm prepared to look at other viewpoints.

It's unfortunate this was closed; I had a worthwhile answer to give, and got shut out half way through. But it's not so unfortunate that I'm going to vote to reopen...

It was closed with this reason - This question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice, within the scope defined in the help center.

@Ted Wringly - I would like to read your response. I voted for the question to be reopened for this purpose.

It looks like I have the option to edit the question. Clearly it has ruffled some feathers somewhere. If any of the moderators can help me edit the question so that it fits within the bounds of Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice then I would appreciate it.

Well, the question is a bit off the beaten path (pun intended). I suggest you remove the sourer comments (e.g., references to 'Pavlovian reactions' and such) and refocus it on buddhist principles as much as possible. No guarantees, though...

Voted to reopen as well. Monks might want to review this question in regards standards so as to whether refusal to be innaculated would be allowable.

@Ted Wrigley - Thank you. My wording is sometimes not appropriate.

Would you also consider that drunk driving is a discernment that concerns just our own body?

i vote to keep it open because i have written an answer

Let's think for a moment about the choice this question (apparently) leaves us with. Do we:

align ourselves with the set of anxieties and angers that coalesce around conceptions of highly transmissible and overtly deadly diseases, or...
align ourselves with the set of anxieties and angers that coalesce around conceptions of overbearing sociopolitical actors and callously indifferent industries?

The first is tanhā related to the physical body, on the idea that the behavior of everyone must be moderated and restricted for the health and safety of all. The second is tanhā related to the egoic self-image, on the idea that there are inviolable rights inherent in the self that must not be violated by unconscionable actors. Of course, there's nothing unusual about this. I might even go so far as to say that politics itself (from the Buddhist perspective) is always  the public stage on which different forms of tanhā fight battles for dominance. But still... The cessation of tanhā is the goal of Buddhist practice, so something in this question is leading astray.
If we allow both these vectors of tanhā to fade away — release the image of perfect health security for everyone, and release the image of perfect liberty for ourselves, with all their attached urgings and impulses — what's left? The only thing left is compassion for people (including ourselves) struggling through difficult times, caught in a confluence of fears. Ultimately it doesn't matter what we do or do not put in our bodies, because bodies (ultimately) thrive and then wither on their own schedules. Ultimately it doesn't matter if others abuse our rights and liberties, because who we are (ultimately) cannot be taken by anyone. There are always things gone wrong in the world, and while we should sit up and face those things squarely, we should do it gently, in the understanding that this 'wrongness' arises because people are trapped in their own fixated illusions. We must be able to embrace the delusions along with reality, because only by holding both at once can we find the compassion we need.
Protect yourself, protect those around you. Ease the heart of the world, which is already inflamed enough. There's no principle to apply here, aside from the generic rule that compassion is the response to suffering.

Perhaps there's another or a related principle: that harming others causes regret or remorse, so you aspire to behaving ethically i.e. to avoid being harmful.

@ChrisW: Well... It seems to me the urge to avoid negative emotions (like regret and remorse) is another ego-based anxiety. I mean, sure: that approach might work at a certain level of development, but it will prove to be a stumbling block if it is entrenched as a foundational point of ethics.

@Ted Wrigley - this is an excellent answer, but I cannot find solace in the term "It doesn't matter what we do or do not put into our bodies".

@Ted Wrigley  - ignore my previous comment. Having reread your answer I saw further depth behind the warp and weft of the words.

I marked this answer down. It appears to lack a basic ethical consideration & a gross misunderstanding of the higher teachings about tanha and falls into the sphere of nihilism. Also, the dual world views appears very childish or cartoonish, like a movie about good guys and bad guys; like Star Wars. In Buddhism, ethical considerations are not centered around "anxieties" but are based in wisdom. This alone makes the answer non-Buddhist. For example, a Buddha is free from anxiety but has clear moral perspective. This answer appears to be Cultural Marxism, i.e. "compassion" without morals

@Dhammadhatu: You're entitled to cast whatever vote you like. And I generally welcome feedback, too, though I'm having a hard time filtering out the unpleasantness in your comment to find any meaningful or useful critiques. Apparently you don't think I understand Buddhism very well. But you know, I don't think you understand Buddhism very well. Or maybe you understand it well enough, but fail to put it into practice in your writing; hard to say. However, I do agree we can disagree without being disagreeable. Maybe we could open up a private chat and hash things out?

Yes, you are having a hard time observing a sense object on a trivial unimportant chatsite with wisdom & non-attachment. Yet imagine all those people whose lives have been destroyed due to unnecessary lockdown mania; all the children with permanent psychological injury; etc. etc. LOL - you say just sit back and watch the suffering of the world due to obvious totalitarian corruption that harms the Dhamma; yet you are having a hard time filtering out your own self-created unpleasantness in my comment. The Buddha never taught to blame others for our unpleasant reactions; as Cultural Marxism does

@Dhammadhatu: well... First: that's not what I said, and I'm saddened you read it that way. Second: I didn't critique your answer, I chided you for calling someone 'brainwashed' because they disagreed with you. What you are doing there and here is not right speech and it's not right action. I'd really like to cool this down and have a proper discussion, but I'm not sure how we can accomplish that. Do you have any suggestions?

let it go.... comments section is not for Cultural Marxist virtue-shaming or extended discussion. Ultimately, the virus has a 99.7% or so survival rate. It is a most serious fraud and demonstrates, AS THE BUDDHA TAUGHT, the foolishness of the masses of worldlings. The BUDDHA said: 58. Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing. 59. Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom. 174. Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight.

@Dhammadhatu: I don't have anything to let go of here, D. I'm not wrong in my answer, and I'm not wrong that you've fallen short of right speech and right action. I have not critiqued your answer even once (though you keep talking as though I have); I've critiqued your behavior because such behavior needs adjusting. That is the point you are studiously trying to avoid (even though there's no shame in missing the mark). And take care: not every one you meet will be the blind fool you assume them to be; best not to make the assumption at all.

@TedWrigley Epically good answer, and exemplary comment interactions. I'm actually going to bookmark this, because I think it will be useful for me to come back to this page as a blueprint for practicing patience. I'm grateful that the question got reopened and your answer emerged onto the internet.

The monastic rules of the Vinaya has rules pertaining to food, lodging, medicine, conduct etc. There are rules pertaining to medical care. The Buddha ate, slept, wore robes, took medicine when he was ill etc.
The Middle Way of the Buddha avoids both extreme indulgence and extreme asceticism. It includes moderation in food, healthcare and living. To neglect healthcare is to go against the Middle Way of moderation.
From Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Theravada Vinaya, the Buddha taught:

"A sick person endowed with five qualities is hard to tend to: he does
what is not amenable to his cure; he does not know the proper amount
in things amenable to his cure; he does not take his medicine; he does
not tell his symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse
desiring his welfare, saying that they are worse when they are worse,
improving when they are improving, or remaining the same when they are
remaining the same; and he is not the type who can endure bodily
feelings that are painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent,
disagreeable, life-threatening. A sick person endowed with these five
qualities is hard to tend to.
"A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does
what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things
amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as
they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying
that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are
improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and
he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful,
fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A
sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.

Based on this Vinaya quote, I would say that the Buddha himself would have wanted his followers to practice moderation, and accept the advice of healthcare professionals and the government when dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Of course, they should not accept advice blindly but they should ask questions and clarify their doubts before they accept the advice if they see fit, as taught in the Kalama Sutta (below):

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" —
then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to
this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless;
these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
& carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter
& remain in them.

Also, spreading misinformation about Covid-19, masks and vaccines is against the fourth precept of not speaking falsehood.
Wearing a surgical mask is more for the wearer to avoid spreading pathogens to others, than for the wearer's own protection from contracting an infectious disease. As such, wearing a mask with the explicit intention of reducing others' suffering, is also an expression of compassion (karuna).
Getting vaccinated with the intention of preventing others, especially the high risk group, from becoming infected, is also an expression of compassion (karuna).
The quote from DN 26 below, also shows that the Buddha did not promote anarchy or civil disobedience. He stated that the wheel-turning monarch should provide just protection and security to his subjects and also care for their welfare.

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court,
troops, aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of
town and country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let
injustice prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the
realm.

I would even say that a responsible Buddhist should support his or her government and follow its advice (after clarifying it), if the government is discernibly doing the right thing, and if its advice is in accordance with the five precepts, Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood. For e.g. conscription into military service is against Right Livelihood, and should be declined.

This is a very helpful and informative answer.

i mark this answer down because the writer claims to know the efficacy of masks where countries such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark & Holland have not mandated the use of masks and Mr Fauci of the USA originally said to not wear mask, then said to wear one mask and then said to wear two. there is no evidence masks work and in fact masks can lead to false sense of security and carelessness. the pre-Covid WHO guidelines were social distancing & hand washing. this answer accuses others of false speech when it itself could be false speech

@Dhammadhatu Some of your statements may be out of date -- e.g. Netherlands makes facemasks mandatory indoors -- or this says it's obligatory in Denmark in various places -- or in Finland it's recommended (even if not obligatory).

appears the above has troubled discerning between reality & political correctness.

The only issue with this answer is that I'm not sick. I'm being invited to use preventative measures just in case I get sick. Additionally, the Kalama sutta refers only to seeking a reliable teacher.

@NeuroMax Prevention is better than cure, whether in health (using good diet, exercise, nutrition and vaccines) or in the teachings of the Dhamma (as stated in Iti 109). We are (nearly) free from diseases like polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella etc. because of vaccines. Now, the latest news from Israel (here) shows that in a study of 1.2mil people, the Pfizer vaccine is around 94% effective. In addition, Israel has vaccinated 74% of its population with at least the first dose.

@ruben2020 - I agree.

I've read that one shouldn't sacrifice one's own welfare for the welfare of others, no matter how great. Clearly know your own welfare and be intent on the highest good.
It's from Dhammapada verse 166.
This aside, consider the legal argument of forced vaccination precedent as it was argued in  "Jacobson vs Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), wherein United States Supreme Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state."
The base argument was that an individual doesn't have the liberty to endanger others.
However individuals do have the right to endanger others, clearly, ie operating a vehicle or owning a gun as is the mere existence of another being a liability to others.
Furthermore it has been argued that the vaccine is assumed to be safe if the state says it is safe, even tho side effects can occur for some it is the individual who has to prove that he is particularly susceptible to the side-effects and therefore the state can not be sued if the individual is made ill or crippled by the inaculation as it was his own responsibility to prove that this was going to happen.
From my own perspective say they cripple you and thus make it difficult to attain the destruction of taints, i think taking these chances would be sacrificing your own welfare for the welfare of others.
It is basically a group being willing to sacrifice an individual for the sake of the collective. Where have we seen this before?
Can you imagine Sariputta walking around and trying to inaculate people against their will or asking others to do it?
There are instances where a group would expell someone & forcibly removing them from an assembly but i really doubt that teacher would mandate the tracking down of recluses to inaculate them against their will.
As i see it, in general if a meditator is bothered by some rule such that it would cause them anxiety then at least sometimes allowances are made, precedent for this is ie the rule of eating once a day being modified as to accomodate the anxious.
I think the question is whether the teacher would say; "I allow monks to refuse the inaculations" or "Inaculations are not to be refused, whoever should refuse is an offense of wrong-doing."
I am not going to tell you what to think but these are the alternatives.
I really don't see this sarscov2 vaccine to be all that essential to the training and i doubt the teacher would mandate it for the Sangha because there are serious side effects which would make the training difficult to fulfill and there is a lot of stress & vexation caused by the ordeal in general as these inaculation side effects if not serious then often still, quoting Bill Gates:'super painful'.
Arahant's aren't known for following the wims of the government and there are plenty of incidents of defiance and that especially in the commentarial stories.

There you go, im not sure how much analysis you want and  not going to tell you what to do. I can show what i think is the of the essence here.

Thank you for the additions. Personally, I think many of your points are more in-line with dhamma. From a certain angle it may appear selfish, but from another angle it's completely acceptable. I would like to select this as a correct answer, but I don't understand the Bill Gates reference. There is a place for vaccination in this physical world and at this current time in whatever form it takes. Whether it is right or not should be left to the individual to decide - having made reasonable enquiries. Viruses have been around for a long time and nature seems to have managed them perfectly well.

The reference was to a comment he made about a particular sarscov2 vaccine, my point being that a vaccine being a cause for vexation is not unheard of and one should weigh the pros and cons. In general i think the vaccine thing should be analyzed on a case to case basis as to the particulars of the vaccine and individual predispositions.

Thanks. I selected Ted Wrigley's answer because of how he used the word 'tanha' in his answer.

Let's not fret over which answer looks best to this or that person :) Have a good one and tnx for asking.

From a Buddhist perspective, how does one reconcile with the huge moral and ethical shortcomings that allow pharmaceutical companies to indemnify themselves from any Ill effects caused by vaccination?

I agree with ruben2020's advice, but I want to add that I also like to follow doctor's orders -- i.e. it isn't only me, the government, and the pharmaceutical companies -- there are experts i.e. doctors who decide.
I want others to have medical advice, I think it's right that I do the same.
Incidentally I lived in one of the rare jurisdictions where they wanted everyone to get a flu shot. My doctor, recommending that I get one, was quite open with me that it was recommended "for the sake of the herd" as well as for my own benefit.

It seems the intention behind vaccination is well meaning. I agree with maintaining human life. It's a very precious existence.

there are doctors out there carelessly prescribing antidepressants and getting people addicted to them. sorry but the above answer lacks yoniso manasikara. also, there is no medical consensus on this matter therefore the main argument in the answer of trusting a doctor is non-sequitur

the question is unrelated to buddhism because buddhism is about what is verified to work to alleviate harm & suffering
the virus has been around for 12 months now and people are not dying in the streets
30 million Americans have been tested Covid positive, estimates have been made of 105 million Americans positive, yet around 500,000 Americans died with Covid
of those 500,000 deaths, 94% had an average of 2.9 comorbidities contributing to their deaths (thus regardless may have died within the next 5 years)
ignoring the spike in excess deaths for young people (who have probably died of drugs & suicides, as stated by the CDC), the excess American death rate has been calculated at around 14%, which is an increase in the overall death rate from around 0.9% to around 1.04%. Again, due to comorbidities, the excess death number may simply include a concentration of premature deaths of comorbid people therefore may not represent what would have occurred in the future
many western countries have not reported any excess deaths however the USA is a country with terrible comorbid health, especially obesity & diabetes, and terrible medical care for the masses. it is quite evident in the USA, UK & Sweden many of the deaths were due to medical malpractice, such as moving old sick people out of hospitals and into age care homes or refusing to attempt to use certain medicines which have been shown the work in a majority (but not all) cases
the vaccines have not been extensively tested on the high risk groups, such as the elderly, which is why many European countries have restricted some vaccine use on the elderly
Pfizer have clearly said they cannot guarantee their 'vaccine' can stop transmission
therefore, the vaccination program appears largely experimental and not known if it can stop the deaths of the tiny group of people vulnerable to Covid-19 death
it follows a Buddhist cannot be informed enough to make a clear decision about this and it also follows a clear-minded Buddhist would naturally be suspicious of the mainstream narrative.
..............

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


text:
Buddhism: Morality & Biology
I have relapsed out of Buddhism two times in my past. Currently, I am between reconciling and rejecting it yet again. I decided to make this post to ask questions that I feel will help me either reconcile or reject Buddhism. I have categorized my questions into two areas: morality and biology. Before I write my questions below, please note the following information: I was/have been part of the Theravada Mahasi Sayadaw tradition under Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's teachings and have studied both Buddhism and science in the past as a vigorously dedicated layman in both fields.
Section 1: Morality

How is it possible that those who achieve Nibbana are morally infallible?
How is it that certain mind-states are objectively unskillful (evil) or skillful (good); wouldn't that be subjective to say?

Section 2: Biology

How can there have been past Buddhas if civilization/Homo sapiens evolved recently (archeologically speaking)?
How do the planes of existence and rebirth make sense amid the heavily (as far as I understand) supported theory of evolution?

Thank you for your time and may you be well.

You may want to consider splitting this into 4 separate questions, since they are not related to each other.

@ruben2020 Would you be referring to me splitting it into 4 separate posts or just 4 separate areas on this post (taking into mind that I posted them into one post to not create an appearance of spam amid all the other questions being asked on this platform)?

What I meant was that, you are recommended to split this into 4 separate question posts, but you're not compelled to do so at this time.

@ruben2020: I'm not sure splitting this up is necessary: this is mainly a question about the compatibility of the Western scientific worldview with Buddhist religious doctrine. There may be two questions here — one archeological (points 1 & 2) and one psychological (points 3 & 4), but even those are not too far apart.

I agree with Ted, this seems more like one question in 4 parts than four unrelated questions.

OK. Then we can leave it as a single question post.

Split it up of course. How is the epistemological morality of a mindstate immediately & apparently related to whether the theory of evolution is compatible with the genesis of a world system?  Also OP is using words like "theory of evolution", "nibbana" and i am not sure how he understands them. It would be good if the questions are split and terms clarified as to OPs understanding.

Also the title is inappropriate, make it so that one avoids duplicates and questions are properly archived...

Furthermore it is good if OP goes to explore his understanding of the theory of evolution in the biology section of this site and asks about the genesis of a world system here. This is the proper course, it seems like people here have no compassion for the questioneer and don't at all care if he is further confused by people's potentially halfwit understanding of biology & the dhamma.

Also being skeptical has nothing to do with being scientific. Being scientific is being scientific, ie having atleast a decent grasp on ie quantum biology would be relevant to this question. Doesn't take a scientist to be skeptical. No offense but it is quite obvious that the question is not very scientific but rather a struggle to reconcile two fields of knowledge that one doesn't fully understand.

@8527 Thank you for the feedback! I found it to be extremely helpful and have edited my post as a result. I hope it is much better. Also, I did not go into the technicalities of both Buddhism and science in this post for simplification reasons. Again, your comments are much appreciated. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions or feel free to even answer my very questions. :) May you be well!

It is awesome that you didn't take offense mate. I can only answer in brief as i am not familiar neither with the public discourse nor controversies surrounding archeology and theory of the evolution of species.

Section 1: Morality

How is it possible that those who achieve Nibbana are morally infallible?

It depends on how you are approaching this question.
From an outward perspective, someone fully awakened is not morally infallible, because there will be some people or groups that believe that their actions are not moral.
From an inward perspective, someone fully awakened will be morally infallible, because they will generate no intention/volition to do harm to anyone or anything.

How is it that certain mind-states are objectively unskillful (evil) or skillful (good); wouldn't that be subjective to say?

Again, it has to do with if you are considering the question from an outward perspective (someone making an outward judgement of a person), or from the inward personal perspective (a persons experience of their being).
Looking from an inward perspective, mind-states that lead to greater internal peace as well as greater harmony, less conflict with others and the world, will be considered skillful mind-states.
Mind-states that lead to greater internal pain as well as greater discord and conflict with others and the world, will be considered unskillful mind-states.
Section 2: Biology

How can there have been past Buddhas if civilization/homo sapiens evolved recently (archeologically speaking)?

Buddhist cosmology has beliefs on the universe having endless previous expansions (big bang) and contractions, which could give rise to countless occurrences for "human-like" beings to arise.
Leaving that aside though, homo sapiens have been around for 2-300 thousand years, much of which we are lacking historical insight. This in itself is time in which a Buddha may naturally arise; Before homo sapiens, the human categorical species have been around for millions of years more than that, possibly giving chance for Buddhas to arise.

How do the planes of existence and rebirth make sense amid the heavily (as far as I understand) supported theory of evolution?

Planes of existence & rebirth are constant topics of controversy and conversation in Buddhism and mean different (and multiple) things to many people and organizations around the world. For example, Some believe planes of existence are regarding skillful mind-states as being heavenly and unskillful mind-states as being hell-like; Others believe them to be actual separated planes that beings exist in space; Others believe both to be true simultaneously.
If you are taking the perspective of the scientific theory of evolution, then they probably won't make much sense. If you are going to entertain these kinds of thoughts at all (which is not necessary or even recommended by many for the practice of meditation and virtue development), better to do it in a way that is personable and verifiable by you, not by science.

Buddhism is focused mostly on the actual practice of cultivating skillful mind-states to gradually reduce your own suffering and bring greater peace in your life. Any energy you give towards actual practice is manifoldly more fruitful than energy you give to these theoretical questions regarding Buddhism.
If you give some decent effort to actual practice, you can be like your own scientist and discover for yourself if there's actually any legitimacy behind all this Buddhist stuff!

"someone fully awakened will be morally infallible, because they will generate no intention/volition to do harm to anyone or anything." What does a fully awakened person eat?

@RonJohn From my understanding, an enlightened individual would eat what they get on alms rounds just as any monastic would.

@Grey1 that looks like a Big Fat Cop-out: you can intentionally/volitionally harm a carrot, and then give it to me, while I stay morally infallible because I didn't do anything to the carrot.  This "food laundering".

@Grey1 Carrot juice is murder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM

@RonJohn Considering the long life and transformation of material, the water from the rain of the clouds was harmed when the carrot plant drank from the earth's water and the dirt of the earth was harmed when the carrot plant ate from the dirt of the earth and the carrot consumed by the human becomes the particles of the earth again when that human dedicates, contributing to the cycle again. From the stance in which you are speaking, most of the material consumed could be considered harmful taking into account the long span of time in which material transforms to compose different forms.

This stance is the outward perspective stand, taking judgement upon another persons actions, which is easily justifiable as a harmful action. All material is tainted in this way I describe above. From the inward perspective, one can interact with this tainted material without generating intentions of harm towards it.

Carrots can't even argue about whether or not they have free will.  Thus, they cannot cannot "damage with conscious or intentional purpose" (that's what "harm" means) the soil.  Ditto rain falling on the ground, eroding rock: it damages the rock; it does not harm the rock.

I guess this brings into question what "life" really is... the same law that causes the carrot to grow or the earthquake to trigger or the human to take the bite out of the carrot. What commonality is behind it all? At what point does damage become harm?

"From the inward perspective, one can interact with this tainted material without generating intentions of harm towards it."  That's no different than money laundering: I intended no harm with this money that a drug dealer gave me -- the owner of a grocery store (which just happens to be partly owned by my brother the drug dealer).

"At what point does damage become harm?"  Intent.  When was the last time you looked at ruined sheet rock and said, "oh look: water harm!"?  Never.  Why?  Because harm requires intent.  Another example: is this cold snap in South Texas harming water pipes, or is it damaging water pipes?  That's right: it's damaging them because ice has no intent.

A human can desire to nourish their body without also desiring to cause harm to an animal (or plant); They otherwise desire harm upon their own bodily life.

As to biology you might want to look into Robert Lanza's work, he is a biologist and is also into theoretical physics. Therefore you might want to check out his take on the biology side of things.
I can't vouch for him being the bearer of truth but he comes off as seemingly reasonable.
He tends to give talks at Buddhist assemblies and therefore i mention him.

Section 1: Morality
How is it possible that those who achieve Nibbana are morally infallible?

I will start by defining Nibbana here according to the teacher's message;

Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion.’ Of what now, venerable sir, is this the designation?”
“This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.” https://suttacentral.net/sn45.7/en/bodhi

Without getting into details and particulars of how the destruction & removal of taints comes about, one can here see that the claim is that the attainment of that however it comes about completely removes delusion and this in & by itself would make such intellect purified & infallible as it would be without any delusion.
Ie if we don't know the goal of life then we are ignorant of it.
However we can know that in order to realize the goal we must first know what the goal is, if we know the goal we can aim to achieve it.
Therefore the intermidiate goal to becoming morally infallable is the development of understanding as to see the goal and knowing how to realize the ultimate purpose.

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer

One who sees the goal can be expected to hit it, not one who is otherwise.
Moral fallibility implies ignorance as being wrong on account of delusion.
One who has attained the removal of delusion in the ultimate sense is made infallible in that regard.

How is it that certain mind-states are objectively unskillful (evil) or skillful (good); wouldn't that be subjective to say?

If the intermidiate goal of life is becoming such genius who can see the ultimate goal of life. Then it follows that one can give attention to what is connected with the goal of becoming such; and one can give attention to what isn't connected with the goal of becoming such and is rather connected with becoming otherwise.
What one gives attention that one perceives, what one perceives that one thinks about and it is based on what one thinks about that one is assailed by various mindstates which become the inclination of the mind due to a frequent giving of attention.
Therefore one here can categorically classify the mindstates which are associated with development leading to seeing & realizing the goal of life as states that are good; and one classifies the states that are not conducive to that development as detrimental or bad.
From here one infers the appropriate & inappropriate giving of attention.
The teacher has proclaimed that understanding is to be developed for removal of delusion & attainment of the ultimate goal.
It is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
People generally disagree about how the word consciousness is to be understood & ought to be thought about; but they do agree that the understanding of it is to be developed and that great minds think alike.

I have relapsed out of Buddhism two times in my past. I was/have been part of the Theravada Mahasi Sayadaw tradition under Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's teachings...

Yes, the cause for relapse is understandable.

How is it possible that those who achieve Nibbana are morally infallible?

The above applies to very few individuals. They are morally infallible because their minds are super peaceful, calm and free from any type of selfish motive.

How is it that certain mind-states are objectively unskillful (evil) or skillful (good); wouldn't that be subjective to say?

Morality is a very general thing therefore it can only refer to a  range of general behaviors rather than to minute individual or Cultural Marxist hyper-sensitives.
In brief, generally all people don't want to be killed or physical abused; don't want their property stolen; don't want to be sexual exploited, used &/or betrayed; don't want to be lied to; and don't want intoxicated people causing trouble for them, such a vomiting on their carpet or smashing into their cars when driving. This shows how morality is objective.

How can there have been past Buddhas if civilization/homo sapiens evolved recently (archeologically speaking)?

The idea of past Buddhas is mostly found in one section of sutta (Digha Nikaya) and is obviously nonsense given the technology found those many eons ago was the same as found in 600BC India.
The Buddha taught the Refuge in the Dhamma is refuge in the teachings that can be verified to end suffering in the here-&-now. This is all that is required to be a real Buddhist.

How do the planes of existence and rebirth make sense amid the heavily (as far as I understand) supported theory of evolution?

Yuttadhammo monk posted in this forum there is no Pali word that means "rebirth". The teachings translated as "rebirth" are simply about the results of kamma (action). In reality, there appears no such thing as reincarnation or rebirth. If we ignore the misinterpretations about 'rebirth', we can focus on the realistic & experienceable teachings of Buddhism.

Could you please elaborate on why my relapse would be understandable? I am curious. :)

i've never read practise resembling Mahasi Sayadaw in the suttas.

OP: How is it possible that those who achieve Nibbana are morally infallible?

Once ignorance and the rest of the ten fetters have been uprooted, the enlightened are free from mental defilements, causing them to not have any thoughts based on greed/ lust, anger/ aversion or delusion.
Please read the Buddhism part of this answer for more details.

OP: How is it that certain mind-states are objectively unskillful (evil) or skillful (good); wouldn't that be subjective to say?

Objective morality in Buddhism is based on compassion and the notion that you will feel remorse hurting others, because you know how it would feel if others hurt you.
Removal of remorse is needed to brighten the mind, which is needed for the rest of the path to enlightenment.
Please read this answer for details.

OP: How can there have been past Buddhas if civilization/homo sapiens evolved recently (archeologically speaking)?

It's not clearly answerable.
Some texts imply the Big Bounce model of the universe where the universe expands, then contracts and becomes destroyed, then expands again. So, past Buddhas may even have existed in past universes. Please see this answer for details. But this is only a conjecture.
Some people see this only as an exaggeration added to the texts.
Either way, this does not make any difference to the Buddha's message and teachings. It is not important compared to the path to the end of suffering.

OP: How do the planes of existence and rebirth make sense amid the heavily (as far as I understand) supported theory of evolution?

Please read this answer and this answer to understand what rebirth is in Buddhism. It's the rebirth of individuality and not really the rebirth of the individual, since there is no soul or permanent consciousness in Buddhism.


text:
Understanding Rūparāgo and Arūparāgo
In the Theravada tradition, the fetters model makes reference to rūparāgo and arūparāgo found in the higher fetters.
I've never been a jhana follower, but I can clearly recognise that the rupa jhanas and the arupa ayatanas move into me from time to time and sometimes in sequence, one after the other. From early in my practice I noticed they had there own type of sensual craving not particularly connected with dense forms. I found this to be a suitable motivational incentive to move away from desire for worldly form but soon saw the drawbacks of having too much emphasis on rupa jhanas and rupa ayatanas. As such, I developed an indifference about their perceived feeling-tones, but I was still able to utilize the benefits they bring concerning insight and wisdom. My main practice is satipattana.
There is an interpretation I came to naturally understand using the aggregates model alongside my here-and-now experience, that one craves either the perception of form or the perception formless both through objectification of mental ideas born from the study of dhamma and the motion of practice. One could use the term spiritual materialism as an umbrella term. I find this practice helpful but too tricky to compile into words. To summarise, it's just a granular way of watching the rise and fall of the aggregates.
My question is, what other interpretations can be given to rūparāgo and arūparāgo from within Theravada traditions and also other Buddhist traditions?

From early in my practice I noticed they had there own type of sensual craving not particularly connected with dense forms.

Jhana is not considered "sensual", including when craved for.

Rūparāgo and arūparāgo

The above appears to be lust for the blissful and equanimous feelings of rupa jhana and formless spheres, such as rapture, happiness, equanimity, spaciousness, etc, such as described in AN 9.36:

Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded
from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first
absorption.... If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with
the ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously,
because of their passion (dhammarāgena) and love
(dhammanandiyā) for that meditation. They are extinguished there,
and are not liable to return from that world.

Apart from the above, I do not know of any other sutta explanations.
For a personal opinion, Ajahn Buddhadasa said:

The next defilement, the sixth of the fetters, is desire for the bliss
associated with the various stages of concentration on forms (rupa -
raga). The first three grades of Aryian are still not capable of
giving up attachment to the bliss and tranquillity obtainable by
concentrating deeply on forms, but they will succeed in doing so when
they move up to the last stage, that of the Arahant. The fully
concentrated state has a captivating flavor, which can be described as
a foretaste of Nirvana. Though it differs from real Nirvana, it has
more or less the same flavor. While one is fully concentrated, the
defilements are dormant; but they have not evaporated away entirely,
and will reappear as soon as concentration is lost. As long as they
are dormant, however, the mind is empty, clear, free, and knows the
flavor of real Nirvana. Consequently this state can also become a
cause of attachment.
The seventh subtle defilement is desire for the bliss associated with
full concentration on objects other than forms (arupa - raga). It
resembles the sixth fetter, but is one degree more subtle and
attenuated. Concentration on an object such as space or emptiness
yields a tranquillity and quiescence more profound than concentration
on a form, with the result that one becomes attached to that state. No
Arahant could ever become fascinated by any state of pleasant feeling
whatsoever, regardless of where it originated, because an Arahant is
automatically aware of the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and
nonselfhood of every state of feeling. Other hermits and mystics
practicing concentration in the forest do not perceive the hidden
danger in these blissful states and so become fascinated by and
attached to the flavor of them just as immature people become attached
to the flavor of sensual objects. For this reason the Buddha used the
same word "desire" for both cases. If you think this subject over and
really come to understand it, you will be full of admiration and
respect for these individuals called Aryians.

Yes, the suttas seem lacking in that region. This is why we drop them entirely and go with our own intuitive direction. I guess that's tough for some practitioners.

No, The suttas are clear enough that they apply to non-returners.


text:
Health Questions Regarding the Ordained
Below, I have questions regarding Buddhist monasticism. They are centered around topics of health.

May a monastic regulate their alms diet in order to focus on healthy foods and avoid unhealthy ones?
Would it be appropriate for a monastic to physically exercise to keep healthy?
Do monastics have access to healthcare for dental & physical checkups as well as brush their teeth, cut their nails, etc.?

Thank you for your time and may you be well.

There was a story from Ven. Yuttadhammo about a monk complaining that he wasn't allowed to run up and down steps in order to "stay in shape", and being teased -- "what 'shape' did you want to stay in: square? round?"

@ChrisW Ah, yes. I have seen that video. I suppose I have a different understanding about physical exercise than Venerable Yuttadhammo despite him being one of my primary sources for learning and practice.

May a monastic regulate their alms diet in order to focus on healthy
foods and avoid unhealthy ones?

As a monk, you generally accept what you are given. However, after collecting the food, you can choose to eat certain foods from your bowl and discard other foods; although this may be awkward to do when you are given foods & eat in public (such as at a public ceremony).
If you live in a hardcore monastery, often all the alms food is mixed together in a large bowl and then ladled out; thus preventing choice. However, this is rare.
Unless you are 'rock-star' monk or nun in California, you are generally given food by Asian benefactors, such as white rice, curries and lots of sweets. It is quite noticeable many monks in Western monasteries supported by ex-pat Asians appear overweight (possibly due to lots of public offerings & public eating and being offered lots of cakes & sweets).
A monk came to live in my small local area (in Australia) once for a few months. You could see his craving for my food when he visited my house (where i provided healthy brown rice, lots of veggies, eggs, tofu, nuts, etc). Most people offered him rubbish to eat. But I expelled him after a few days because he taught Dependent Origination incorrectly (when unasked!!).  Therefore, a monk with wrong views that slanders the Dhamma and the Buddha may also not receive healthy food but, instead, eat junk food from the hands of fools.

Would it be appropriate for a monastic to physically exercise for the
sake of retaining their health?

In a hardcore monastery, generally there is physical work to do, such as sweeping the forest paths, working on building projects, carrying water, etc. Plus there is alms round and walking meditation. Therefore, a monk exercises.
However, there is nothing stopping you doing exercises in private, such as doing push ups and sit ups in your hut. But visible exercise in public is generally disallowed.
Once I saw in Thailand a German monk kicked out of a monastery for insisting on doing Tai Chi in a public park in the monastery. The German monk cried it was unfair.

Do monastics have access to healthcare for dental & physical checkups
as well as brush their teeth, cut their nails, etc.?

Generally, yes. Monks are generally well looked after. When I lived in well-known monasteries in Thailand as a layman, the local hospitals always gave me free medical care when required, including once during a one-week stay in Bangkok.

May a monastic regulate their alms diet in order to focus on healthy foods and avoid unhealthy ones?

Few can do and most can not.

Would it be appropriate for a monastic to physically exercise for the sake of retaining their health?

When you say for the sake health. Is this closer to rehabilitation after suffering a stroke or jogging for general exercise? I think this question isn't supposed to be answered categorically.

Do monastics have access to healthcare for dental & physical checkups as well as brush their teeth, cut their nails, etc.?

I think most monks have access to these things.

I edited question two in my post. Hopefully that is clearer.

Would you consider swimming such exercise ie?

In general if a bhikkhu is sick and exercise is necessary then he can enter water. Otherwise it's inappropriate to go for a swim as means of keeping healthy.

It's paccittiya 53. In brief "Naturally, a sick bhikkhu entering the water for health reasons does not commit any fault. The same thing applies to a bhikkhu who swims only for the purpose of crossing a river that obstructs his way."

In general i think there is a silid case to be made for it being inappropriate for a bhikkhu to become enthusiastic about some exercises, to play for sport, jogging and etc

OP: May a monastic regulate their alms diet in order to focus on healthy foods and avoid unhealthy ones?

The Theravada Bhikkhu Patimokkha states:

There are these finer staple foods: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses, fish, meat, milk, and curds. Should any bhikkhu
who is not ill, having requested finer staple foods such as these for
his own sake, then consume them, it is to be confessed.

Based on this, I assume that it may be possible for a monk to request for healthier meals based on his health condition, but he may not get it, if he is dependent on almsfood.
In this article, we read about the 14th Dalai Lama:

During his early years in Tibet, the Dalai Lama would have eaten meat
as part of his diet because of the country's reliance on consumable
livestock in lieu of sufficient vegetable crops. When he fled to India
in 1959, he adopted a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet in accordance with the
beliefs of many of the country's own Buddhists. Unfortunately, after
20 months, he contracted hepatitis and developed gall bladder disease,
and his doctors insisted he resume eating meat for health reasons.

Of course, the Dalai Lama is a popular religious leader who could easily get any kind of food he desires.
The Buddha also gave advice in the Donapaka Sutta (also see this answer) to eat less or eat moderately:

When a person is constantly mindful,
And knows when enough food has been taken,
All their afflictions become more slender
— They age more gradually, protecting their lives.

OP: Would it be appropriate for a monastic to physically exercise to keep healthy?

Please watch Ven. Yuttadhammo's "Ask A Monk: Physical Exercises" Youtube talk. He basically says that monks eat less than normal laypersons, perform walking meditation and other physical tasks, and this is sufficient for monks.
Also he says that monks should not be averse to suffering from health problems as it is a learning opportunity to understand reality. But this is his opinion only.
The suttas also speak of monks exercising, for e.g. from the Meghiya Sutta:

Then in the early morning, Ven. Meghiya adjusted his under robe and —
carrying his bowl & robes — went into Jantu Village for alms. Having
gone for alms in Jantu Village, after the meal, returning from his
alms round, he went to the bank of the Kimikālā River. As he was
walking up & down along the bank of the river to exercise his legs, he
saw a pleasing, charming mango grove

OP: Do monastics have access to healthcare for dental & physical checkups as well as brush their teeth, cut their nails, etc.?

I suppose they do, but I don't have info on this.

About dental and physical checkups - what about monastics who live alone in the jungle or forest - what will they do?

@Tranquility I think that they would a) be within walking/driving distance of a place that can provide such things or b) have such checkups occur on their premises in the forest (i.e. the dentists/physicians come to them or a monastic is trained in such ways themself) or c) not have such checkups at all. I think most monastics are within reach of civilization/laypeople despite sometimes being in a desolate location. Without civilization/laypeople nearby, where would they get their alms on their alms rounds (and one person would probably be a doctor of some sorts)? Hope this helps!


text:
Do Buddhists claim that if there was a self it could not be annihilated?
Do Buddhists claim that if there was a self it could not be annihilated? I dimly remember reading this, but no argument or anything like that.

The first and perhaps most famous sutta like that which comes to mind is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (SN22.59) translated here and here.
I think that says that if something (e.g. form or consciousness or feeling or perception) is impermanent, then it's "not fit" to be regarded as "self".
The word translated as "not fit" is kalla ("clever", "healthy", etc.).

great answer, thanks. took me a moment to get it!

In addition to the answer by ChrisW, the following sutta quotes provide further perspective on the same topic.
From SN 22.93:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, suppose there was a mountain river sweeping
downwards, flowing into the distance with a swift current. If on
either bank of the river kasa grass or kusa grass were to grow, it
would overhang it; if rushes, reeds, or trees were to grow, they would
overhang it. If a man being carried along by the current should grasp
the kasa grass, it would break off and he would thereby meet with
calamity and disaster; if he should grasp the kusa grass, it would
break off and he would thereby meet with calamity and disaster; if he
should grasp the rushes, reeds, or trees, they would break off and he
would thereby meet with calamity and disaster.
“So too, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling … regards form as self,
or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
That form of his disintegrates and he thereby meets with calamity and
disaster. He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional
formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing
consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in
consciousness. That consciousness of his disintegrates and he thereby
meets with calamity and disaster.
“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or
impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus
… He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”

From MN 22:

“Venerable sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent
internally?”
“There can be, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, someone
has the view: ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I
shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I
shall endure as long as eternity.’ He hears the Tathāgata or a
disciple of the Tathāgata teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of
all standpoints, decisions, obsessions, adherences, and underlying
tendencies, for the stilling of all formations, for the relinquishing
of all attachments, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion,
for cessation, for Nibbāna. He thinks thus: ‘So I shall be
annihilated! So I shall perish! So I shall be no more!’ Then he
sorrows, grieves, and laments, he weeps beating his breast and becomes
distraught. That is how there is agitation about what is non-existent
internally.”
“Venerable sir, can there be no agitation about what is non-existent
internally?”
“There can be, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, someone
does not have the view: ‘That which is the self is the world…I shall
endure as long as eternity.’ He hears the Tathāgata or a disciple of
the Tathāgata teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all
standpoints, decisions, obsessions, adherences, and underlying
tendencies, for the stilling of all formations, for the relinquishing
of all attachments, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion,
for cessation, for Nibbāna. He does not think thus: ‘So I shall be
annihilated! So I shall perish! So I shall be no more!’ Then he does
not sorrow, grieve, and lament, he does not weep beating his breast
and become distraught. That is how there is no agitation about what is
non-existent internally.

Perhaps this is what you are remembering:
The Fruits of the Ascetic Life

3.3. The Doctrine of Ajita Kesakambala One time, sir, I approached Ajita Kesakambala and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings
and polite conversation were over, I sat down to one side, and asked
him the same question.
He said: ‘Great king, there is no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or
offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s
no afterlife. There’s no obligation to mother and father. No beings
are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is
well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after
realizing it with their own insight. This person is made up of the
four primary elements. When they die, the earth in their body merges
and coalesces with the main mass of earth. The water in their body
merges and coalesces with the main mass of water. The fire in their
body merges and coalesces with the main mass of fire. The air in their
body merges and coalesces with the main mass of air. The faculties are
transferred to space. Four men with a bier carry away the corpse.
Their footprints show the way to the cemetery. The bones become
bleached. Offerings dedicated to the gods end in ashes. Giving is a
doctrine of morons. When anyone affirms a positive teaching it’s just
hollow, false nonsense. Both the foolish and the astute are
annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and don’t exist
after death.’
And so, when I asked Ajita Kesakambala about the fruits of the ascetic
life apparent in the present life, he answered with the doctrine of
annihilationism. It was like someone who, when asked about a mango,
answered with a breadfruit, or when asked about a breadfruit, answered
with a mango. I thought: ‘How could one such as I presume to rebuke an
ascetic or brahmin living in my realm?’ So I neither approved nor
dismissed that statement of Ajita Kesakambala. I was displeased, but
did not express my displeasure. Neither accepting what he said nor
contradicting it, I got up from my seat and left.

A sutta possibly providing an answer is the 2nd and most important sermon of the Buddha, namely, the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic. Relevant paragraphs for consideration are:

"...if form were self, then form would not
lead to affliction (ābādhāya) and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form
be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is
not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain
regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'
"... if feeling were self, then feeling
would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding feeling:
'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus'; and indeed, O
monks, since feeling is not-self, therefore feeling leads to
affliction and it does not obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling
be thus, may my feeling not be thus.'
"... if perception were self, then
perception would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding
perception: 'May my perception be thus, may my perception not be
thus'; and indeed, O monks, since perception is not-self, therefore,
perception leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding
perception: 'May my perception be thus, may my perception not be
thus.'
"... if mental formations were
self, then mental formations would not lead to affliction and it
should obtain regarding mental formations: 'May my perception be thus,
may my mental formations not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since
mental formations are not-self, therefore, mental formations lead to
affliction and it does not obtain regarding mental formations: 'May my
mental formations be thus, may my mental formations not be thus.'
"... if consciousness were self, then
consciousness would not lead to affliction and it should obtain
regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my
consciousness not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since consciousness
is not-self, therefore, consciousness leads to affliction and it does
not obtain regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may
my consciousness not be thus.'

While the above is referring to ābādhāya (sickness), it is indirectly saying, if there was a self, such a self should be permanent or not capable of sickness (and thus decay and death).

No, they don't.
Those who claim a 'self' defined what they mean by the 'self' and some thinker at the time of Buddha, for example, the Sankhya philosophers posit a self that can not be annihilated and the Buddist show that it is not true.
It's like if group A says a unicorn exists. The Buddhist didn't say 'for a unicorn to exist it has to have a single horn on its head' it's not the business of the Buddist defining what that other group thinks, it's group A who claims to know a horse with a single spiral horn on its head.
So in short when the Buddhists say 'not-self...not-self' they are not predicting the existence of a thing called self.
If you ask them what is self they will probably say an idea by some stupid people, but they won't define it for you.


text:
What words in Pali are correctly interpreted as rebirth/reincarnation?
In comments to this question I saw a disagreement over the proper translation of various Pali words in suttas commonly translated with the english word rebirth or reborn.
According to Ajahn Sujato various Pali words are correctly translated as rebirth/reborn. However, another very detailed and extensive analysis by 'Element' on the linked website comes to the conclusion that none of the Pali words in the suttas are properly translated as rebirth or reborn. It appears implied that the english word 'rebirth' is synonymous with the idea of reincarnation as commonly understood by the non-Buddhist contemporary religions of India and Nepal in the time of the Buddha.
The question arises: if none of the Pali words in the suttas cited in the links above are suitably understood or translated as 'rebirth', then what Pali words in the suttas were used to describe the idea of reincarnation as commonly understood by the non-Buddhist contemporary religions of India and Nepal in the time of the Buddha?

One strong impression from the Pali suttas (due to the lack of discussion with Brahmins on the subject in the suttas) and the little I have read of the Vedas is the Vedas did not contain any systematic teachings on the subject of reincarnation.
The impression (from the little i have read) is the Vedas taught about two worlds, namely, this world & the other world, which i imagine was the heaven of Brahma. Otherwise, three worlds, here.
For example, I recall recently reading (somewhere) Sariputta & Moggallana were formerly disciples in a sect that believed in going to heaven with Brahma after death.
My vague recollection from chatsite banter, including by the Ven. Sujato himself, is systematic doctrines of reincarnation began forming in the later Upanishads; which 'reincarnation' aficionados, such as Sujato, who appear to go for refuge in non-Buddhist scholars, attempt to date prior to the Buddha; even though there is no account of any Upanishads in the suttas.
My recollection is the Ven. Yuttadhammo has posted on these matters, here and here.

There are references to the Upanisads in the suttas, they just aren't obvious. For example the discussion with Queen Mallika and King Pasenadi (SN 3.8) about the dearness of the self parallels BrU 2.4.5 where Yajnavalkya and his wife Maitreyi have a similar conversation.
Another example is explained in depth by Dhivan Thomas Jones in his paper (which can be found on the Oxford Journal of Buddhist Studies Website) called "Upanisadic Upaniṣadic Echoes in the Alagaddūpama Sutta"  http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/226/289

Hello Linda. There are no references to the Upanisads in the suttas.; apart from late suttas, such as DN 15, which has a belated definition of namarupa. What exactly in the the Alagaddūpama Sutta are you referring to? Why don't you post a new question on the forum about what you regard as Upanishad references in the the Alagaddūpama Sutta. Thanks