text:
How to be meditative and involved at work?
At work, I try to be mindful, deliberate, and calm. I found with the help of meditation and being mindful makes me less distracted and less stressed at my work or whatever I do. But I also feel being mindful, deliberate and calm makes me slow, feels less involved at my work(though I feel focused) and less energetic. I used to be very active and fast at certain stuffs I do but now I dont feel like that if try to be mindful.
How to overcome this? I want to be mindful and calm but I also want to be fast and involved at my work(or in other words highly active)?

This is why the book Flow needs to be burned.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret - those periods where you are mindful and engaged?  You are actually moving faster than you think.  Possibly faster than you are when you feel that you are moving at a quicker clip.  When the mind moves slowly, it begins to see additional details.  Instead of your consciousness being smeared across a series of moments in an intoxicating blur of dopamine, now you are in particle after particle attention.  Persist long enough and you will even begin to see space between these very particles.  This can be very boring at first.  It's also uncomfortable.  But it is a gateway into your bigger mind.
There is a koan that asks why do you put on your seven piece robe at the sound of the bell?  I'm more inclined to ask you what is it like to put on that robe?  Where, then, is your mind as you carefully pull on your rakusu?
But there's a danger here.  The Zen patriarchs warn us to "live neither in the entanglement of outer things nor in inner feelings of emptiness".  While there is a danger of moving too fast and being dashed on the outer world, there is an equal danger of moving into pure quietism.  Those inner feelings of calm and collectedness are important, but they are not the whole story.  Speed and slowness are really no different.  When the barriers between subject and object begin to dissolve, you will arrive at a place that knows neither fast nor slow.
But for now, take it one moment at a time.

I want to know if I can balance that ? or am I missing something? In philosophical context what you say makes sense to me, but in reality i feel it is counterproductive


text:
Sutta on leaving absorption/concentration/meditation
I'm looking for a Sutta I read recently that has instructions (or a description) on a gradual exit of meditation/levels of concentration. It might talk about this in the context of Samādhi or Jhāna, I'm not sure. I recall it being somewhat similar to SN 47:10 in that it is more of a parallel description of concentration/absorption/mindfulness, rather than the usual formulas.
I've skimmed through the Satipaṭṭhānasaṁyutta and the Jhānasaṁyutta, but there's just too many discourses. Not to mention the fact that the Sutta I'm looking for might not even be in the Saṁyutta Nikaya.
Any pointers would be much appreciated.

The first sutta that came to mind is the Culavedalla Sutta where a very exquisite dialogue takes place between the nun Dhammadinna and the laymen Visakha. Here is the excerpt in question.

Now, lady, how does emergence from the cessation of perception &
feeling come about?"
"The thought does not occur to a monk as he is emerging from the
cessation of perception & feeling that 'I am about to emerge from the
cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I am emerging from the
cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I have emerged from the
cessation of perception & feeling.' Instead, the way his mind has
previously been developed leads him to that state."
"But when a monk is emerging from the cessation of perception &
feeling, which things arise first: bodily fabrications, verbal
fabrications, or mental fabrications?"
"When a monk is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling,
friend Visakha, mental fabrications arise first, then bodily
fabrications, then verbal fabrications."
"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling,
lady, how many contacts make contact?"
"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling,
friend Visakha, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness,
contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected."[2]
"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling,
lady, to what does his mind lean, to what does it tend, to what does
it incline?"
"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling,
friend Visakha, his mind leans to seclusion, tends to seclusion,
inclines to seclusion."[3]
Culavedalla Sutta

check out MN 111, and AN 9.36.
Note that only the last two of the 9 attainments require emerging from the attainment before doing vipassana.
Visuddhimagga redefines jhana into a disembodied state (as opposed to suttas wehre one can perceive 5 senses of the body), and also adds a frozen stupor state. MN 111 and AN 9.36 show clearly the different between Vism. and suttas.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Discrepancy between quality and consistency
In my meditation, I face a paradox. The quality of a single session of meditation is usually quite good for me. However, in terms of regularity across sessions, I struggle immensely, skipping sessions continuously. How can there arise such a discrepancy between a single meditation session's quality and my ability to be consistent? Are those reliant on different faculties? Is there a way to remedy this?

Sounds like a struggle that you aren't in control of that is impermanent. That is correct practice if you are practicing Satipathana.

Ignore the quality of your sits, at least for now.  That's largely irrelevant.  Consistency is far more important.  At this stage of the game, the most important thing for you do be doing is generating momentum in your practice.  You want to develop habit energy or, dare I say it, good karma.
The great way isn't about blissing out on the cushion.  It's about being a selfless, sweating mule resolutely putting one foot in front of the other as he climbs up the mountain.  Sometimes a cool breeze blows through, but for a long time it's just the humid lowland air, the bugs, and aching legs.  Don't judge your practice by how it makes you feel.  Instead, evaluate it according to your dedication.  After all, we can never really tell where we are on the path.  But we can evaluate our commitment to walking it.

Koan 17 of the Hekiganroku
Cutting through nails and breaking steel for the first time, one could
be called a Master of the First Principle. If you run away from arrows
and evade swords you will be a failure in Zen. The place where even a
needle cannot enter I’ll leave aside for a while, but when the foaming
billows wash the sky, what will you do with yourself then?
Case
A monk asked Kyorin, “What is the meaning of Bodhidharma’s coming from
the west?” “Sitting long and getting tired.”

If one manages to occasionally create a peaceful state that one can relax in & enjoy, then one might also on that account become content with that attainment & not exert more effort.
One might think things like: 'I am a good meditator because of this and it is easy for me" or "I now know how to do this and can relax a little". Otherwise one might get restless & overly excited which will make one lose one's intensity of judgement and be carried away on the currents of lustful intent. Otherwise one might start to worry about "when will i again enter into & abide in that awareness release" and further worry about it not working as you expect and becoming frustrated, taking a break and etc

you're fortunate to have the capacity for stable concentration but are unfortunate to have the habit of believing it will last and will always be available to return to.
extremely common result from being conditioned by a physicalist hedonist society.  the way to remedy is to study subtle impermanence so you can perceive your death clearly and function in accord with reality instead of just conditioning and appearances.

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


text:
Why did the Buddha teach how to escape Samsara if there is no soul?
Yes, I have seen the similar questions. But they do not satisfyingly answer my own since my question is slightly different. Let me explain:
I was reading up on Emptiness, Samsara and so on and found out that there is no individual soul or energy that reincarnates. Rather, it is like a candle lighting another whereby the wax of the new candle is different and has nothing in common with the previous candle.
And I see that this image does not contradict (if there is no soul how can there be rebirth?) the theme of rebirth when looked at it this way.
But I was wondering about one thing:
If there is no individual, eternal essence (like the Atman in Hinduism) that is liberated wouldn't that mean that life would go extinct at a certain point? I mean if I understand the Buddha correctly we all return to the one "collective", true essence that he called the unborn, unchanging etc...
Doesn't that mean that at the point where all beings were liberated life would cease to exist?
So my question is why did he teach to free oneself from rebirth when looked at it from the perspective I tried to describe?
Come to think of it the Buddha seemingly never answered questions of the origins or the fundamental workings of the universe. For example I know he was once asked what would happen to a fully enlightened Buddha after death.
To my knowledge he would answer questions like this saying that it was meaningless to ask such things.
Did the Buddha know something about the non-self or the universe that he purposefully never taught? Is the goal of a sentient being to join the "one soul/ground of being" that is the unborn? But why? Is it bliss to cease to exist and join a "homogenous mass of energy"?
Why is it important to sever the karmic cycle if it is obvious that this is the way in which the universe manifests itself? In my opinion the universe manifesting as this myriad life forms is a joyous loving act and the whole point of the cosmic energy. I'm confused since I read that part about the Buddha's teachings...

Read the answer to the question 27 in this link: https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/KarmaQ&A/Section0005.html

The doctrine of non-self applies and is equally true and valid for all of the three times: the past, the present, and the future. Your questions presuppose that there is a difference in the manner and extent of the fact of rebirth from moment-to-moment in this very life vs from life-to-life. They also presuppose that the doctrine of non-self is similarly different in manner and extent from moment-to-moment in this very life vs from life-to-life.
You have the correct conception of the doctrine of non-self teaching that there is no soul or essence to be found in the person. While this is true, I think you've drawn the unwarranted conclusion that the self in this very life is therefore equated with the body. You believe that it is the body that continues in this very life from moment-to-moment and therefore with the death and the breakup of the body it is hard for you to understand how there can be further rebirth. However, the doctrine of non-self does not imply this conclusion. Equating the body with the self is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of non-self.
I would encourage you to first stop and think about this very life. The doctrine of non-self and rebirth both apply to your everyday momentary existence. Is it true, then, that your moment-to-moment existence is well characterized by, "Rather, it is like a candle lighting another whereby the wax of the new candle is different and has nothing in common with the previous candle?" Does your current momentary existence truly have nothing in common with your previous momentary existence??
So if the self is not to be equated with the body (how could it be since the body you have at birth has not one atom in common with the body you have as a dying old person?), then how does the self exist? Does it not exist?? If it does exist, then in what fashion? How is it that rebirth of this self happens from moment-to-moment in this very life?
There is a wealth of understanding to be had by seriously considering the above questions just focusing on this very life. I contend that if you truly understand the answers to these questions in an unmistaken manner, then your questions about rebirth and emptiness from life-to-life will no longer arise.

UPDATE: Some attempts to answer the questions directly:
"If there is no individual, eternal essence (like the Atman in Hinduism) that is liberated wouldn't that mean that life would go extinct at a certain point?"
No, it does not mean this. Just as life continues in this very life even though all of us lack an essential self, it will not go extinct upon the true recognition of this very fact.
"I mean if I understand the Buddha correctly we all return to the one "collective", true essence that he called the unborn, unchanging etc... Doesn't that mean that at the point where all beings were liberated life would cease to exist?"
No, it does not mean this. To the extent that we all have buddha-nature (which is what I assume you are trying to describe with talk of 'true essence'?) we all have it right now in this very instant. It is not something that is acquired. Thus, life will not cease to exist when this buddha-nature is cleared of all fabrications obscuring it.
"So my question is why did he teach to free oneself from rebirth when looked at it from the perspective I tried to describe?"
He taught the Holy Dharma out of compassion for all sentient beings stuck in this unsatisfactory cyclic-existence.
"Did the Buddha know something about the non-self or the universe that he purposefully never taught? Is the goal of a sentient being to join the "one soul/ground of being" that is the unborn? But why? Is it bliss to cease to exist and join a "homogenous mass of energy"?"
No, the Buddha withheld no medicine from sentient beings. He did however prescribe different medicine for different individuals based on their particular manifestation of ailments. There is no cessation of existence! This is the view of annihilationism that the Buddha emphatically denounced!
"Why is it important to sever the karmic cycle if it is obvious that this is the way in which the universe manifests itself?"
This is explained as the first noble truth.
"I guess my question is what happens after the death of a fully enlightened being such as Shakyamuni? Since it was his last rebirth what happens after? Does he simply merge again with the unborn? Did the Buddha ever address himself to that?"
To some audiences he refused to answer or countenance such questions. This is because they were not ready for such powerful medicine. However, to other audiences, he did broach such questions and gave powerful medicine to sentient beings. The primary place you will find the answer to such things is in the Second and Third turning of the Wheel of Dharma. To take this medicine it is important that you have a very firm grounding in the foundations of Dharma practice and faith in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.

You fail to answer my question entirely. Your answer to my post makes it clear that you seem to nurture a spiritual ego rather than extending help. My fundamental question remains: What does the Buddha intend to convey when teaching about the non-self?

I'm sorry @Arbuiwer I was honestly trying to help! Was my answer seen as condescending because I claimed you didn't understand the doctrine of non-self? Was any of it helpful? I'm trying to figure out how to help so any more suggestions? I will try and think about the questions some more to see if I can come up with anything else that might help.

Yes, the answer as a whole did indeed seem condescending and not taking me seriously. That was obviously not the case. For that, I apologize.

The condescending tone was not intended and I hope my updated answers are helpful. Let me know anything else I can do to improve the answer(s)!

My question is about the purpose of overcoming the cycle of birth and death. The Buddha (to my knowledge) never really revealed what the purpose of severing the cycle was other than saying that it's pure bliss and freedom. I guess my question is what happens after the death of a fully enlightened being such as Shakyamuni? Since it was his last rebirth what happens after? Does he simply merge again eith the unborn? Did the Buddha ever adress himself to that?

Yes, and I am sorry for rushing to conclusions about that

I've edited the answer again to take out some of the condescending tone as well as add a bit about your latest question via comments. Hope this helps! :)

Thank you very much for your time you took answering. Regarding the last question (what happens to a fully enlightened...): Is there a sutra where he broaches that topic in depth? Because exactly that part is the whole reason for my intitial post. I would love to know what he said about this to the people who had the wisdom to receive that medicine.

Hmm, maybe open a new question then with precisely this last question of yours and ask for sutra references for second and third turnings. I'll try and help.

Thanks Yeshe. I read your comment on the other question. Nothing wrong with your delivery. Thank you for your feedback. Some things are clearly out of my bounds. ;-)

I was reading up on Emptiness, Samsara and so on and found out that
there is no individual soul or energy that reincarnates. Rather, it is
like a candle lighting another whereby the wax of the new candle is
different and has nothing in common with the previous candle.

Your question is about the Buddha but the Buddha never taught the above. The Buddha taught:

Bhikkhu, just as an oil-lamp burns in dependence on oil and a wick, and when the oil and wick are used up, if it does not get any more fuel, it is extinguished from lack of fuel; so too when he feels a feeling terminating with the body…a feeling terminating with life, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with life.’ He understands: ‘On the dissolution of the body, with the ending of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here.’
MN 140

What you have read about a candle flame are later-day superstitions.

And I see that this image does not contradict (if there is no soul how
can there be rebirth?) the theme of rebirth when looked at it this
way.

But it does contradict. A flame cannot exist with a body of wax therefore when the wax is gone, just as when the body is lifeless, no flame can exist independent of a body of wax for the flame passes onto another candle. The candle flame analogy makes no logical sense at all.

If there is no individual, eternal essence (like the Atman in
Hinduism) that is liberated wouldn't that mean that life would go
extinct at a certain point?

The Buddha taught "liberation" is the absence of the mental states of greed, hatred & delusion, which includes giving "birth" to the idea of "self". "Samsara" and its ending is explained as follows:

"Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running
around and circling around that very post or stake; 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 people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
their Dhamma — assumes form 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.
"He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that
very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"But a well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard
for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has
regard for people of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their
Dhamma — doesn't assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing
form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He doesn't assume feeling to be the self...
"He doesn't assume perception to be the self...
"He doesn't assume fabrications to be the self...
"He doesn't assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as
possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self
as in consciousness.
"He doesn't run around or circle around that very form... that very
feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that
very consciousness. He is set loose from form, set loose from
feeling... from perception... from fabrications... set loose from
consciousness. He is set loose from birth, aging, & death; from
sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is set loose,
I tell you, from suffering & stress.
SN 22.99

I mean if I understand the Buddha correctly we all return to the one
"collective", true essence that he called the unborn, unchanging
etc... Doesn't that mean that at the point where all beings were
liberated life would cease to exist?

No. The word "unborn" means to not conceive thoughts of "self", as follows:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
he yearn?
MN 140

So my question is why did he teach to free oneself from rebirth when
looked at it from the perspective I tried to describe?

The Buddha never taught to free oneself from "rebirth". There is no word spoken by the Buddha that means "rebirth". The Buddha taught to free the mind from "birth". "Birth" means to conceive & produce ideas of "self" and "beings", as follows:

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent,
coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of
[sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings,
that is called birth.
SN 12.2

Come to think of it the Buddha seemingly never answered questions of
the origins or the fundamental workings of the universe.

The Buddha said he only taught about suffering & the cessation of suffering (Alagaddūpama Sutta).

For example I know he was once asked what would happen to a fully
enlightened Buddha after death. To my knowledge he would answer
questions like this saying that it was meaningless to ask such things.

"Death" does not occur to a Buddha because a Buddha does not have the idea "I will die".

Did the Buddha know something about the non-self or the universe that
he purposefully never taught? Is the goal of a sentient being to join
the "one soul/ground of being" that is the unborn? But why? Is it
bliss to cease to exist and join a "homogenous mass of energy"?

The Buddha never spoke the above, which sounds like Hinduism.

Why is it important to sever the karmic cycle if it is obvious that
this is the way in which the universe manifests itself? In my opinion
the universe manifesting as this myriad life forms is a joyous loving
act and the whole point of the cosmic energy. I'm confused since I
read that part about the Buddha's teachings...

The Buddha taught the end of suffering. Ideas of "self" and "my kamma" causes suffering.

Thanks for clarifying. Seems I still have lots to learn. I will certainly read the texts from the links you referenced

OP: I mean if I understand the Buddha correctly we all return to the one
"collective", true essence that he called the unborn, unchanging
etc... Doesn't that mean that at the point where all beings were
liberated life would cease to exist?
Is the goal of a sentient being to join the "one soul/ground of being"
that is the unborn? But why? Is it bliss to cease to exist and join a
"homogenous mass of energy"?

No. The above describes Hindu ideas about the individual self merging into the Supreme Self aka Absolute Truth aka Ultimate Reality, like a drop of water merging with an infinite ocean. This is not Buddhism.

OP: So my question is why did he teach to free oneself from
rebirth when looked at it from the perspective I tried to describe?

Well, the objective of Buddhism is not freedom from rebirth. It's simply the cessation of suffering. Please read about the Four Noble Truths.
Suffering at a superficial level is about pain, disease, death, separation from what is liked and encountering what one dislikes.
Suffering at a deeper level is about unsatisfactoriness or discontent that happiness is not permanent, and unhappiness is not permanently avoidable.

OP: Come to think of it the Buddha seemingly never answered questions of the origins or the fundamental workings of the universe.
For example I know he was once asked what would happen to a fully
enlightened Buddha after death. To my knowledge he would answer
questions like this saying that it was meaningless to ask such things.

When faced with the Covid-19 virus pandemic, is it more useful to find a vaccine and/or cure for it, or is it more useful to find out where it came from? Or who made it?
The Buddha was more interested in solving the immediate problem of suffering, and he was not interested in explaining the origin of suffering or the origin of the universe or the structure of the universe. You can read up on the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.
The teachings of the Buddha are not metaphysics. They do not describe the ontology or nature of things, which the Buddha considered unconjecturable (please see the Sutta on Unconjecturables).
The teachings of the Buddha serve one purpose only - freedom from suffering. It's purpose is soteriological, not ontological.

OP: Did the Buddha know something about the non-self or the universe that he purposefully never taught?

He knew enough of it to know that it's not important. Please see the Parable of the Simsapa Leaves.

OP: Why is it important to sever the karmic cycle if it is obvious that
this is the way in which the universe manifests itself? In my opinion
the universe manifesting as this myriad life forms is a joyous loving
act and the whole point of the cosmic energy.

Do you ever find that deep inside of you, there is a feeling of unsatisfactoriness and discontent, that manifests as either unhappiness or boredom, that there is no permanent happiness? Anything that makes you happy is impermanent, unstable and unreliable? Anything that makes you unhappy is never permanently avoidable? Do you seek entertaining or pleasurable distractions when encountering such feelings of discontent?
If the answer is "yes" to the above, then you can study Buddhism to find the permanent cessation of suffering.
If the answer is "no", then you don't need Buddhism at this time.
It's more useful to focus on the problem you have right now, than to focus on the idea of some obscure future rebirth in which you will not remember that you posted this question, and much less remember what the answers to it were.

OP: Why did the Buddha teach how to escape Samsara if there is > no soul?

The end of suffering is sought. Don't ask "sought by whom?" There is the problem of suffering, and it needs to be urgently solved and eliminated.

I mean if I understand the Buddha correctly we all return to the one "collective"
I wouldn't have said that. I think the doctrine says that fabricated (conditioned or compound) things -- i.e. sankharas -- are impermanent.
Conversely nibanna is not impermanent -- not fabricated, not conditioned, and so on.
I think that "we" may be an example of identity-view -- a type of wrong or mistaken view.
Doesn't that mean that at the point where all beings were liberated life would cease to exist?
I think there's already a topic about that on this site -- but I won't search for it now because I don't think it's the main point of your/this question.
So my question is why did he teach to free oneself from rebirth when looked at it from the perspective I tried to describe?
I'm not sure that question is answerable. A better question might be, "why did he teach when looked at from the perspective he tried to describe?"
I think the answer might be "freeing onceself from rebirth" might be synonymous with "liberation from suffering":

What Are the Three Devadutas?

The First Noble Truth

Vajira Sutta (SN 5.10)

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

Is it bliss to cease to exist and join a "homogenous mass of energy"?
I think it's bliss -- or fortunate rather than unfortunate -- to ...

Not identify with impermanent things -- e.g. call them "me" or "mine"
Not attach to things which are: a) impermanent; and b) unsatisfying
Moderate or eliminate unwholesome desire
Behave in a skilful/ethical way which doesn't cause suffering and remorse
Have good friends

... and so on.
But to be chasing bliss might be just another example of samsara, non-liberation.
"Bliss" gets a look-in here -- What’s the Purpose? (AN 11.1) -- apparently as a useful or undistracted state of mind, not as an end-goal.

But what’s the purpose and benefit of bliss?

Another answer -- as well as or apart from it's being about escape from dukkha -- is that it's about liberation.
There's a little essay about that here -- The Taste of Freedom

He is free from fear, from the chill of anxiety which even kings know in their palaces, protected by bodyguards inside and out.

It's freedom from kilesas -- painful emotions and cognitive obscurations -- and perhaps it's easy to see why that is a good thing, worth teaching.

Buddha taught that the conception & perception of existence is inherently unpleasant due to the nature of pleasant feelings to change and their change being unpleasant.
He further inferred that it is inappropriate to regard that which changes & is unpleasant as a self.
He thus defined unpleasantness and through development of dispassion grew equanimous towards feeling & perception.
When the mind is established in the perception of unattractiveness then there is no resolve on experience of this or that on account of infatuation and with that there is a stilling of the directing of mind through giving attention.
This truth & possibility of such a stilling & cessation of the classes of unpleasantness is a truth & reality to be directly known & seen as it actually is and the cessation principle is said to have one taste as that of freedom wherein modes of being gain no footing.

rebirth consists of new moments in our life being produced by previous moments functioned as causes.
the final moment of mind in this lifetime functions as a cause for the first moment of mind in the next life.
this process continues due to misapprehing an enduring self-sufficient self to your person.
persons exist.  an impossible self does not exist.


text:
What happens after the death of a fully enlightened being such as Buddha Shakyamuni?
If possible could someone provide me with references to sutras where the Buddha broaches such topics? In my previous question I asked about it generally and a kind user told me that information could be found in the second and third turnings of the Dharma wheel. Since I am fairly new to Buddhism, could you tell me where exactly to find answers to above question?

I will constrain my answer to the second turning of the wheel of dharma - which is held to be of definitive meaning while the first and third are said to be of interpretive meaning - and answer from Nagarjuna's seminal Fundamental Verses for explaining the Prajñāpāramitā the Buddha's teachings from the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma.
This exact question is brought up in Chapter 22, verse 13 and page 448-451 of Tsongkhapa's, Ocean of Reasoning: A Great Commentary on Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika:

The following explanation is given:

Just in case you think the story is different for the Buddha and sentient beings we have:

To put a very fine point on it, the topic is brought up again in the Chapter on Nirvana, page 529:

The pithy answer is that the Tathagata continues in the same essenceless existence after his passing away as he did before he passed away and this is similarly true of all sentient beings. We all exist free of essence.
Hope this is helpful!

Yes, very much so. Thank you

I must admit it's very hard to wrap one's head around this coming from a western background. I honestly can't see the difference to nihilism. To exist without essence seems to contradict existence itself. I can't seem to figure out how one can exist as the same entity without having an essence. Same with rebirth. How can one remember one's past lifes in the moment of enlightenment if one's true nature is devoid of self? But thanks to you I have plenty to read now. The rest, the true understanding and the gist of what I was trying to comprehend today will probably take me many years to come...

The reply is that the exact opposite is true: to exist with essence would necessarily contradict our everyday ordinary existence. It is only by virtue of the fact that things do not have essence, that our everyday ordinary existence can be! Good luck with your reading and study. Feel free to ask more questions that might come up and hopefully someone can help :)

"It is only by virtue of the fact that things do not have essence, that our everyday ordinary existence can be!" I believe you, but that's just incredibly hard to understand. Admittedly, I am not advanced enough on the spiritual path to understand that yet.

If you want to know how to begin to try and understand it you could ask another question perhaps :)


text:
If one is with firm good heart but unknowingly serves and follows unjust masters, does one still approach better in samsara?
Edit 2: It is really hard to find a corresponding word to 功德 in English... Maybe I should abandon using the Sanskrit word guṇa... And consider 功德 and guṇa as "qualities that leads to better existence in samsara or liberation or buddhahood".

I am recently considering a question, and thus I found that I have difficulties understanding what is guṇa/功德.
The question is: If a person is with firm good heart (which may even be renunciation or bodhicitta), but unknowingly serves and follows unjust masters, does one still generate guṇa/功德? That is, approaching better existence in samsara or even liberation or buddhahood?
Note:
I have known that: a person with deep firm renunciation will eventually go further and further on liberation path and finally attain Arhat; a person with deep firm bodhicitta will eventually go further and further on bodhisattva path and finally attain Buddhahood.
But the question that I have difficulties with involves the concept of guṇa/功德. So I have spend days thinking about it but I still failed to reason out an answer.

Edit 1:
Here is the meaning of guṇa/功德 from < The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism >.

I am not sure what you mean by "firm with good heart".
In Buddha's time there were many people practicing asceticism, take for example naked ascetics, they practice asceticism but what is that good for?

"Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard to do: he
eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty has long
been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What
will be his future course?"[1]
"Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that."
A second time... A third time Punna the ox-duty ascetic asked the
Blessed One: "Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does
what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground.
That dog duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will
be his destination? What will be his future course?"
"Well, Punna, since I certainly cannot persuade you when I say
'Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that,' I shall therefore
answer you.

"Here, Punna, someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog
mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and
unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after
death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as
this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall
become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his
case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say:
hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it
will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him
to hell." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo.html

I think there is another text i can't find where Buddha says that he looked far back and only saw one naked ascetic who had a favorable rebirth and that was due to him teaching the doctrine of cause & effect.
Therefore i think if one follows a doctrine thinking,
'by means of this training i will become a Buddha ir i will become Ariya, a Deva or have a favorable human rebirth, if one holds wrong views in regards to this and follows fake teachings then hell is the destination or animal womb.

One good heart is pure love and so pure it can be higher than what you think there's no two ways ONE HEART. that's what SOME people say CHOSEN ONE. They can fall get back up fall get back up fall get back up. For that reason it's because We had to go threw that to have life up and down just like your heart beat if there was no up and down there wouldn't be life.

Is this answer somehow related to Buddhism?

Good householder,
guṇa means "simply" giving, better goodness. As goodness which leads toward liberation always starts with Sila (moral precepts), certain "goodness" which harms others (at the same time/way) wouldn't lead to freedom of remorse, debt-reduction, liberation...
Worldly guṇa is for the most kama-guna, which means "benefiting in regard of sensual gain", and as sensuality causes always others, or oneself, suffering, it's the lowerst kind of goodness if just giving means but harm others by it and it may force attachment to sensuality as well.
Dhamma-guna means giving, goodness, which leads toward liberation, actually for both, oneself and the receiver, if able to take. So maybe good householder is willing and able to take this simple guidance.
For more on guṇa, ggod here: guṇā គុណ - benefactor, string/bound
As for "unknowingly", it protects even in common laws not from punishments, so doesn't it in regard of effects. At least, not to forget, notknowing (avijja), ignorance, is the root cause of suffering and nobody would ever do bad if knowing: "He wouldn't do wrong, if knowing".

I am not sure what you mean by "firm with good heart".
In Buddha's time there were many people practicing asceticism, take for example naked ascetics, they practice asceticism but what is that good for?

"Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard to do: he
eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty has long
been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What
will be his future course?"[1]
"Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that."
A second time... A third time Punna the ox-duty ascetic asked the
Blessed One: "Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does
what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground.
That dog duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will
be his destination? What will be his future course?"
"Well, Punna, since I certainly cannot persuade you when I say
'Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that,' I shall therefore
answer you.

"Here, Punna, someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog
mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and
unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after
death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as
this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall
become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his
case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say:
hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it
will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him
to hell." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo.html

I think there is another text i can't find where Buddha says that he looked far back and only saw one naked ascetic who had a favorable rebirth and that was due to him teaching the doctrine of cause & effect.
Many Buddhist monks even go to hell, it's all about one's views and Buddha said in pali texts that there is no single thing worse than wrong views when it comes to going to hell.


text:
What did the Buddha mean in MN 140 about what happened to clansman Pukkusāti after a cow killed him?

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
he yearn?
MN 140

Also has:

Then the venerable Pukkusāti, having delighted and rejoiced in the
Blessed One’s words, rose from his seat, and after paying homage to
the Blessed One, keeping him on his right, he departed in order to
search for a bowl and robes. Then, while the venerable Pukkusāti was
searching for a bowl and robes, a stray cow killed him.
Then a number of bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, and after paying
homage to him, they sat down at one side and told him: “Venerable sir,
the clansman Pukkusāti, who was given brief instruction by the Blessed
One, has died. What is his destination? What is his future course?”
“Bhikkhus, the clansman Pukkusāti was wise. He practised in accordance
with the Dhamma and did not trouble me in the interpretation of the
Dhamma. With the destruction of the five lower fetters, the clansman
Pukkusāti has reappeared spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and will
attain final Nibbāna there without ever returning from that world.”

And we have this alternative translation of the relevant passage from Bhikkhu Sujato:

"But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, a stray cow
took his life.
Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one
side, and said to him, “Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was
advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. Where has he been
reborn in his next life?”
“Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the
teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending
of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will
become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.”

What did the Buddha mean in MN 140 about what happened to clansman Pukkusāti after a cow killed him?

the Buddha never said: "Where has he been reborn in his next life?”

Yes, the emphasis was not meant to imply that he did. It was the who mendicants who asked this of the Buddha, and according to Bhikkhu Sujato the Buddha replied, "...he’s been reborn spontaneously..."

I'm marking this as pali and theravada as I'm only interested in the answers from these perspectives. Thanks.

The highlighted translation in the question of "Tassa kā gati, ko abhisamparāyo" as "Where has he been reborn in his next life?” appears questionable or dodgy. "Gati" can simply mean "progress" and "samparāyo" simply means "future" (per Iti 44). Therefore, the question could simply be "what was Pukkusāti's path progress after being instructed by the Buddha?" (rather than "what was Pukkusāti's progress after being killed by a cow?").
In MN 68, the Buddha explains why he declares the "upapattīsu" (noun; locative case) of disciples who have deceased and passed away. While "upapattīsu" is often translated as "rebirth"; it appears it cannot mean "rebirth" because an Arahant disciple that passes away cannot have a "rebirth" (such as in Ud 1.10). Most literally, "upapattīsu" means "proceeded to state". Refer to this answer.
"Opapātikā" does not mean "reborn spontaneously". It means "spontaneously arisen". "Opapātikā" may derive from ‘upapatti’ or, otherwise,
‘upapāta’, which is said can mean ‘unusual’ or ‘unexpected occurrence’.
When the mind enters the stream and particularly when it flows non-volitionally through various jhanas, which occurs to the non-returner, then meaning of 'spontaneously arisen' may be comprehended in its reality. The common insertion into translations of "Pure Abodes" appears to refer to the 4th jhana.
The suttas appear to say the opapātikā of a non-returner occurs in the here-&-now, as follows:

Bhikkhus, living in this community there are bhikkhus who are
Non-Returners through having ended the five lower fetters, who are
spontaneously arisen, who will realize complete nibbana (parinibbāyī) there and by nature will never return from that world. Bhikkhus such as these are living in this community of bhikkhus.
MN 118
How is a person like a good horse with speed but not beauty or the
right proportions. With the destruction of five fetters, a bhikkhu
becomes one of spontaneous birth... This is his speed. But when asked
questions about Dhamma, he falters or does not answer. This is his
lack of beauty. Or he does not gain requisites (food, clothing,
shelter, medicine). This is his lack of right proportions.
AN 3.141

In addition, MN 12 says:

What is egg-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking
out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born generation. What
is womb-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out
from the caul; this is called womb-born generation. What is
moisture-born generation? There are these beings born in a rotten
fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten porridge, in a cesspit, or in a
sewer; this is called moisture-born generation. What is spontaneous
generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human
beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous
generation (opapātikā yoni). These are the four kinds of generation.
MN 12

Since MN 12 differentiates 'opapātikā' from womb birth and since people are born from a womb, obviously spontaneous generation as a gods, denizen of hell, certain human beings and in the lower worlds does not refer to physical birth but, instead, the birth of a psychological state.
As for the common non-returner translation (above) of "parinibbāyī" as "who will realize complete/final nibbana", this appears questionable to me. Refer to the 2nd answer to this question, below. In my opinion, 'parinibbāyī' here may simply refer to the 'complete extinguishment' of the five lower fetters, rendering the lower lower fetters incapable of ever arising again.
To add, the word "return" means to return to sensuality, as follows:

Bhikkhus, one bound by the bond of sensual desire and by the bond of being is a returner, one who comes back to this state.
One freed from the bond of sensual desire but still bound by the bond
of being is a non-returner, one who does not come back to this state
Iti 96

In conclusion, it appears possible the Buddha said nothing in MN 140 about what happened to clansman Pukkusāti after a cow killed him. Instead, it appears, in MN 140, the Buddha said non-returner happened to clansman Pukkusāti after the Buddha instructed him.

i finished my answer. It is unorthodox.

I decided to provide a second answer to this question because the definition of a non-returner has never been clear to me. I personally do not believe a non-returner attains Nibbana in a future life. Therefore, this second answer to the question, whilst unorthodox, is as follows:

Iti 96 says the word "return" means to return to sensuality, as follows:

Bhikkhus, one bound by the bond of sensual desire and by the bond of being is a returner, one who comes back to this state.
One freed from the bond of sensual desire but still bound by the bond
of being is a non-returner, one who does not come back to this state
Iti 96

The Arahant & Non-Returner are defined in the suttas (from MN 118) as follows:

For in this Saṅgha there are Arahant monks, who have ended the fermentations (khīṇāsavā), completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own goal, utterly ended the fetters of becoming and are rightly freed through perfect understanding (sammadaññā) .
In this Saṅgha there are monks who, with the ending of the five lower fetters are spontaneously arisen. They are extinguished there (parinibbāyī) and are not liable to return from that world.

Examining the above, I am skeptical "parinibbāyī" refers to final Nibbana because:

The monk has spontaneously arisen in "a world".

The monk is not "liable to return [to sensuality] from that world".

Nibbana cannot be attained in "a world" because Nibbana is the cessation of all "worlds" (SN 12.44) and "transcends all worlds" ("lokuttara").

"Parinibbāyī" does not necessarily mean a Nibbana without fuel because MN 37 uses the term "parinibbāyati" to refer to here & now Nibbana with fuel.

Also, AN 4.123-125 use the term the "parinibbāyati" in relation to the extinguishing of godly lifespans arising from jhana & metta.

MN 43 includes the 4th jhana as a liberation of mind (cetovimuttiyā); albeit not unshakeable (akuppā) thus not final Nibbana.

It follows I doubt "parinibbāyī" is referring to a future Final Nibbana but merely to some type of lesser "complete extinguishment" of only certain defilements; possibly referring to the final extinguishment of the five lower fetters; where the five lower fetter can never arise again.
Note: this answer is work in progress.


text:
What fault is found in denying Dharmakirti's notion of "substantial cause" as necessary in the arising of things?
I have read here argumentation for the continuity of mind, coming from a Geshe in Tibetan Buddhism.
From what I have learnt it is asserted that:

Consciousness could not arise from matter (could not have matter as its substantial cause).
It could not arise from nothing.
It could only arise from another moment of consciousness.

Note: the definition of "substantial cause" above comes from Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika.
Has anyone come across a Buddhist argument why something could not have nothing as its substantial cause? What faulty logical consequences would follow?
More specifically, I have in mind a situation when due to a higher being's act/wish, something comes into being. What comes into being is not transformed from another previous entity, but emerges "from nothing" merely due to the higher's act/wish.
I would like to understand whether there are logical contradictions that would follow from the asserting this to be possible.

Now that I properly understand the question I'll note that I once asked a similar question. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26081/what-is-the-substantial-cause-of-an-instance-of-consciousness This question here is much better than my old question.

The origin of this whole line of reasoning in Tibetan Buddhism comes from Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika. There have been extensive commentaries and teachings on this from numerous great masters of Tibetan Buddhism. You can find commentaries on it from all the extant schools of Tibetan Buddhism. For an extensive set of discussions on this line of reasoning see this accomplished Tibetan master here.
Let's look at some of the verses in the Pramanavarttika where Dharmakirti sets out his definitions and arguments:

Without a transformation of the substantial cause
The substantial result would be unable to change.
[This is] like, [for] example, without the transformation [61]
Of the clay [there would be no transformation of a clay] vase, and so forth.
Without the transformation of some functioning entity [of the cause]
It is not reasonable that [the cause which] transforms some
functioning entity
[Of the result] is the substantial cause of that [result]
It is like an ox and a wild ox. [62]
The mind and the body are also like that.
Verses 61 and 62 of the Pramanavarttika

How should we understand this? I'm no expert so the following comes with a big warning that I might be entirely wrong. This is how I make sense of it...
Things necessarily arise from the transformation of a substantial cause into a substantial result. The example given is of unformed clay (the substantial cause) transforming into a clay vase (the substantial result). The nature of unformed clay is matter and the nature of a clay vase is also matter. That is... the transformation from unformed clay into a clay vase is the transformation of matter from one thing into another.
The second verse is a bit harder to read, but it is basically saying that if we notice that the result has undergone some transformation - say the clay vase has broken apart - then it is necessary to say that some functioning entity of the substantial cause also transformed - ie., the matter of the clay vase that was part of the functioning entity of the unformed clay.
Both of these are intuitive and in accord with how I perceive the world to work. With the arising of things there is generally a transformation that occurs. Unformed steel and glass and rubber transform into a car. Cars rust and break apart and transform back into unformed steel and glass and rubber. Glass breaks apart and transforms back into silica, et cetera, et cetera.
What's important for showing that the body cannot act as the substantial cause for the mind is that the latter can transform without a corresponding transformation of the body. Similarly, the mind cannot be the substantial cause of the body since the latter can transform without a corresponding change of the mind. Sometimes changes in the two coincide, but it is not necessarily so.
I'll leave the discussion about a higher being to others, but note that it is said in Tibetan Buddhism (and in many other traditions) that God's and so forth do eventually die and transform into beings of the lower realms.
Finally, I'll mention that I do have some qualms with this whole line of reasoning as it seems to be bound up with notions of the hypostatic existence of mind and matter. That is, if the reasoning is valid it can only be a conventional truth with the nature of illusion.
I hope this is helpful.

You assert that the mind can transform without a corresponding transformation of the body, and vice versa. Can you give example\s for these?

nothingness is nonexistent so there is the absurdity of referring to it as a functioning thing and an existing thing.
also from the pov of substantial causes,  mental factors such as intention are not main minds ie. consciousness/mind itself,  meaning they cannot function as substantial cause for the production of a mind.

The non-existence of square circles is an existent fact (square circles do not exist, but their non existence does). The non existence of square circles can be validly known. Imho, in just the same way, non-existence/nothingness in general does exist as it can be validly known.

We say that it is the mental conception of the absurdity of a square circle that is an existent and can be validly known. Therefore it is not true that the non-existence of the square circle exists. That would be contradictory and absurd.

Further, the existence of the mental conception of the absurdity of a square circle is a thoroughly dependent one. That is, it is only in dependence upon the thought that apprehends that mental conception that it exists. Thus the existence of the mental conception of the absurdity of a square circle cannot be inherently existing. It is just a conventional truth.

facts exist like the ones you gave,  but what would they have to do with nonexistents

@YesheTenley At least the Gelug position is that the non-existence of certain things can be validly known, and thus is an existent.   "We can also know that there is no dog in this room. We are seeing an absence of something and know that that something is not here. That is a negation. The absence of a dog in the room is validly knowable negation phenomenon. The absence exists."    https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-buddhism/mind-training/handling-the-challenges-of-life/impermanence-as-a-resource-for-healthy-relationships

@YesheTenley Also, you have not given a reason why the non-existence of square circles is contradictory and "absurd". You have just asserted that (strongly).

Hi Sam, I am giving the presentation according to Tsongkhapa. There is a difference between a dog not being found and the abscence of the square circle. Some negations are internal and some external.

The non-existence of the square circle is a non-affirming negation. When you say it implies the actual existence of an utterly non existent thing you are implying that a square circle itself somewhere exists. That is a paradox and this by def. absurd or contradictory. The subtle point you’re missing is the difference between an affirming negation and a non-affirming one. Both Tsongkhapa and Chandrakirti wrote extensively emphasizing the difference between these two negations and why it is important not to confuse them.

It will be hard to illustrate the difference properly in the comment sections here. If you would like to know more I suggest reading Tsongkhapa or Chandrakirti or opening a new question.

the absence of a dog is a lack of an existing thing.  the meaning of the berzin quote is not that nonexistents are absences

@YesheTenley I beliecve the conundrum arised because I said in the OP explicitly "why something could not have nothing as its substantial cause?". I could have phrased it differently - Why could not something arise without a substantial cause? This way, I feel your critique would be answered but my question would still hold.

Exactly, and that is why I reformed my answer to address that. The difference between the absence of a dog and square circle is orthogonal to your question in the OP.

Anyway, if you want to know more about the difference between the mere absence of an existing thing and a square circle maybe this will help: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/29190/13375

if a produced thing didnt need a substantial cause it means it would arise from itself

@bwtho It would not arise from itself because the contributing conditions would not always be there (e.g. sometimes a higher being would wish for its arisal and sometimes he would not)

produced things are made up of parts.  that is what is dependent on substantial causes,  and if they did not they would arise from themselves. contributing conditions are secondary and its not even clear what purpose they would serve to a functioning thing that could arise from itself without depending on substantial causes

@bwtho But why would  produced things arise of themselves had not they being dependent on substantial causes?

@bwtho if you want to convert your comments on this to a separate answer, I will accept it as the one answering the question (took some time to nail it).

because produced things are dependent things.  if the thing doesnt arise from its substantial cause the only other causally related thing we might say it interacts for its production is thru the power of itself.  it cant be something causally unrelated such as a nonexistent.  is that helpful?  its good to keep chasing it till u fill up all the gaps in ur reasoning


text:
Why did the Buddha not answer Vacchagotta (SN 44.10), but did answer the monks (MN 140)?
It has been said that the reason the Buddha did not answer Vacchagotta was because the discussion was not about the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha, but rather about the illogical doctrine of Vacchagotta:

“Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?”
“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely,
if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ I would have been
siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When
Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, if I
had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’ I would have
been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.
When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely, if I had
answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ would that have helped give
rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?”
“No, sir.”
“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely,
if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’,
Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused,
thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’”
SN 44.10

It's also been said that the Buddha did answer the question about what happened to Pukkusāti after a cow killed him even though it was asked by ignorant monks who presumably were - just like Vacchagotta - not using the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha:

But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, a stray cow
took his life.
Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one
side, and said to him, “Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was
advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. Where has he been
reborn in his next life?”
“Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the
teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending
of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will
become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.”
MN 140

This seems inconsistent. Why is it that the Buddha did not answer Vacchagotta, but did answer the monks if both were premising their questions with ignorant understandings of the view of the self?

There is not much point asking questions that include questionable translations by Sujato. First, the phrase: Tassa kā gati, ko abhisamparāyo translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi as: "What is his destination? What is his future course?” may need to be investigated. For example, samparāyikā in Iti 44 cannot mean "future life". It means "future". Therefore, questions: 1. what is the difference between samparāyikā & samparāyo? and 2. what is the meaning in MN 140 of the word "gati" ("designation"), which as myriad meanings, such as simply "progress in understanding".

The questions are similar in that the existence of self appears to be discussed.
In Vacchagotta's question, a nonsensical demand about the question of existence of self is simply ignored as nonsense.
However, in the case of the monks, they are simply using the convention "he" as a proxy for "that aggregate known as Pukkusāti". And the question is about kamma, not self. The monks are not asserting Pukkusāti's literal existence any more than saying "what will happen to this piece of toast tomorrow?" Indeed, if the monks had asked "where has Vacchagotta been reborn in the next life?", the answer might not be so bright.  Vacchagotta's rebirth might be a bit like the plastics in the ocean. Not extinguished, entangled in notions of a self.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that while it is possible to have the view that a piece of toast is hypostatically existent when speaking, "what will happen to this piece of toast tomorrow?" that it isn't necessarily so? And had the Buddha thought the monks were speaking of Pukkusāti as hypostatically existent, he would have rebuked them or not answered them just like he did Vacchagotta? Does that match what you are saying? If so, then I think I can accept this answer! :)

Erm. I had to look up hypostasis. My goodness what a word. And my head hurts, but I think that, if we can agree that hypostatical existence is "this or that bag of bones or elements", then that is what Vacchagotta and Pukkusati and toast and Oyamist and Yeshe Tenley are.  Views of self are described as traps in DN1, The Prime Net. Vacchagotta is lost in The Prime Net asking the wrong question. The Buddha only teaches the Four Noble Truths about suffering.

NOTE: I've selected this particular definition for hypostasis per Merriam Webster: something that settles at the bottom of a fluid.  Hello fellow precipitate.

NOTE: Funny :) This is however what I had in mind: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypostatize ie, to reify something as "real and actual" is to believe it has hypostatic existence.

I don't see the similarity
Vaccagotta asks whether there is a self or not and i assert that meaning is close to whether there is a soul-consciousness.
Bhikkhus ask where was Pukkusati reborn.
A person can be said to be reborn without there being an assertion of the persistence of consciousness.
Like knowledge is transferred from a teacher to student or how a family lineage is perpetually upheld without there being same anything transmigating from one to another but yet we say it is the same knowledge being transferred or same lineage being upheld.
So monks too can say that a being is reborn without making the redundant assertions because when one speaks of a being one speaks in terms of the doctrine of self, whether this doctrine is agreed upon as being a grasping with wrong view is what separates ariya from common people.
Imo it is most evident in questions Buddha would ask to have one pin down the existence of self.

Are the body/intellect/feelings/perceptions a self? No
Is the self without body/intellect/feelings/perceptions? No
Is the self in, apart from or is the body/intellect/feelings/perception taken together? No

So, one asserts the terms of the doctrine but it does not align with inferable elements and is therefore a lie basically or a grasping with wrong view of some sort.
When it comes to inferable elements this is the very basis for the doctrine of dependent origination.
In it's most basic form there is a discussion or pondering about "something" because there is a pondering and it has an object and the object's particulars which can be agreed upon due to inference and demonstration.
It can agreed upon that there is seeing, smelling, hearing, feeling, tasting & thinking and it can be agreed upon that these depend on certain requisite conditions.
Seeing depends on the eye, when there is no eye there is no seeing.
Seeing depends on the visible form, when there is no lights forms do not become visible.
Seeing depends on the eye-consciousness, an unconscious person doesn't see even if there is an eye & light by which forms are made visible.
We know even from QM physics or philosophical paradoxes that the eye in no way persists over time so why would one assume this about consciousness.
Yet one can speak about an eye persisting or a person getting a new eye without any issues and likewise it is in the texts.

There are some on this forum with idiosyncratic views of anatta and rebirth and how they are to be understood. I say idiosyncratic because they do not seem to be widely shared among the Buddhist traditions from what I can tell. In particular, they hold that speaking of the self in this life - when it is merely for conventional communication - is fine and not in contradiction to anatman, but speaking of the self in other lives in the same continuity is strictly verboten as always contradicting anatman.

They believe that Vacchagotta was contradicting anatman by speaking of the self in this life (not out of mere convention, but rather believing in the hypostatic existence of the self) while the monks were contradicting anatman by speaking of the future self of Pukkusati in a future life after he died which always presupposes hypostatic existence.

It is the view of hypostatic existence that they believe is what contradicts anatman. In this, I am in agreement.

However, I do not understand why they insist that all discussions of future or past lives necessarily entails the presupposition of hypostatic existence. In short, why is it that hypostatic existence is only sometimes the basis for discussions in this life, but always the basis for discussions about past or future lives. Why do they hold so dearly that the Buddha could not be speaking of future lives in the very same conventional manner that the Buddha often used the word "I" to refer to himself in his present life... merely as a means of communicating the truth to worldly beings.

This question is for those people. If you do not believe that this is the case or hold to this idiosyncratic idea, then this question is not for you. I hope this clarifies the intent of the OP.

I will open a question pointedly about the above to let others weigh in who do not necessarily agree with the viewpoint articulated above. That seems a decent compromise.

Yeshe. Have you considered joining a forum such as Dhammawheel or Buddhism Without Boundaries so you can discuss these matters in depth? This said, my answer above is a correct answer.

thing about the doctrine of self is that even tho it is a lie, we are living the lie and grasp what is conceived & perceived as the lie even tho it's perception & conception is technically entirely impersonal, it's just nature. It is not a mere convention, the element of delusion is real and plays a part, it is the basis and is necessary to make sense of the delusion as one would try to understand the delusion of a mental patient this samsara can only be explained in terms of the doctrine of self adherence to which sustains the becoming as perpetual genesis.

In MN 140, the monks asked the question: "Tassa kā gati, ko abhisamparāyo". There is an exact sutta in the Majjhima Nikaya, namely, MN 68, which ends with the Buddha explaining why he answers this very question. MN 68 says, per Horner translation:

The Tathāgata, Anuruddha, does not have the purpose of defrauding
people nor the purpose of cajoling people nor the purpose of gains,
honour, fame and material advantages, nor the thought: ‘Let people
know me thus’ when he explains the uprising (upapattīsu; noun; locative case) in which are disciples who
have deceased and passed away, saying: ‘Such and such a one has
uprisen (uapanno; verb; past participle) in one, such a one has uprisen (upapanno) in another.’ But there are,
Anuruddha, young men of family who have faith and are of great
enthusiasm, of great joyousness, and who, having heard this, focus
their minds on suchness. Anuruddha, this will be for their weal and
happiness for a long time.

In summary, the question by the monks is answered for the sake of explaining the Path progress of the deceased for the purpose of generating faith in the community. The question is not answered for the purpose of generating belief in reincarnation or self.
Where as Vacchagotta was a befuddled wanderer and his question was not related to any aspect of the Path.
END of ANSWER

Note: Ven. Sujato translates MN 68 as:

"What advantage does the Realized One see in declaring the rebirth of
his disciples who have passed away:
kaṁ atthavasaṁ sampassamāno tathāgato sāvake abbhatīte kālaṅkate
upapattīsu byākaroti:

Bhikkhu Bodhi translates "upapattīsu" here as "reappearance".
The above appears more evidence supporting the assertion of Ven. Yuttadhammo on BSE and also DD there is no Pali word that means "rebirth" because when the Buddha declares a deceased disciple is an Arahant obviously this is not a declaration of a "rebirth" or "reappearance" because Arahants are not subject to any "rebirth" or "reappearance".


text:
Does Baphuon temple really converted to a Buddhist temple?
When I was watching some youtube video I heard Baphuon was converted into Buddhist temple.
But It's hard for me to believe it.
My question is why Buddhists would have to convert other religious places to their own.
Here in India mostly shiva temples was Buddhist places.
Conversely picture is different and even shiva concept is copied from Buddha.
That's why I have asked.
Please tell me if it is truth or false if anyone have studied this architecture.

From Wikipedia:
The Baphuon (Khmer: ប្រាសាទបាពួន) is a temple at Angkor, Cambodia. It is located in Angkor Thom, northwest of the Bayon. Built in the mid-11th century, it is a three-tiered temple mountain built as the state temple of Udayadityavarman II dedicated to the Hindu God Shiva. It is the archetype of the Baphuon style with intricate carvings covering every available surface.
In the late 15th century, the Baphuon was converted to a Buddhist temple. A 9-meter tall by 70 meter long statue of a reclining Buddha was built on the west side's second level, which probably required the demolition of the 8-meter tower above to supply stones for the statue, thus explaining its current absence. The temple was built on land filled with sand, and due to its immense size the site was unstable throughout its history. Large portions had probably already collapsed by the time the Buddha was added.
As to the why, Cambodia was first influenced by Hinduism during the beginning of the Kingdom of Funan. Hinduism was one of the Khmer Empire's official religions. The main religion adhered to in Khmer kingdom was Hinduism, followed by Buddhism in popularity. Initially, the kingdom followed Hinduism as the main state religion. Vishnu and Shiva were the most revered deities worshipped in Khmer Hindu temples. Temples such as Angkor Wat are actually known as Preah Pisnulok (Vara Vishnuloka in Sanskrit) or the realm of Vishnu, to honour the posthumous King Suryavarman II as Vishnu.
The empire's official religions included Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism until Theravada Buddhism prevailed, even among the lower classes, after its introduction from Sri Lanka in the 13th century. Since then, Hinduism slowly declined in Cambodia, and finally being replaced by Theravadan Buddhist as the major practice in the kingdom.


text:
Why is speaking about the conventional self in this life ok, but speaking about the conventional self in past and future lives forbidden?
It is widely understood across all Buddhist traditions that the Buddha often spoke of persons and used words like 'I' and 'person' and 'self' and this is not seen as problematic or contradictory to the doctrine of anatman.
Just as it is said by the bhikkhuni Vajira:

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’
SN 5.10

It is also self-evident that the Buddha would associate a proper name with individual beings and use this name conventionally over time to identify specific individuals. This is also not controversial for any Buddhist tradition that I'm aware.
However, there were times when "the self" was discussed in such a way that the Buddha would not answer such as the famous case of Vacchagotta. It is widely understood that the Buddha found Vacchagotta's questions or mindset about those questions as problematic. Specifically, he held that Vacchagotta was confused or had some invalid presuppositions about the self that directly violated or contradicted the doctrine of anatman.
Vacchagotta held to the notion that the self necessarily was real and actual and the Buddha understood that Vacchagotta was incapable of understanding the truth so he was silent.
There are some on this forum who hold that speaking of the self in this life - when it is merely for conventional communication - is fine and not in contradiction to anatman, but speaking of the self in other lives in the same continuity is strictly forbidden as always contradicting anatman and necessarily presupposing the self to be real and actual.
Why insist that all discussions of future or past lives necessarily entails the presupposition of real and actual existence? In short, why is it that real and actual existence is only sometimes the basis for discussions in this life, but always the basis for discussions about past or future lives? Why do some hold so dearly that the Buddha could not be speaking of future lives in the very same conventional manner that the Buddha often used the word "I" to refer to himself in his present life... merely as a means of communicating the truth to worldly beings?
Why is it that some believe we can speak faultlessly of persons in this life and identifying them across various points in time in this life, but we are foreclosed of speaking faultlessly of persons in next lives or in past lives?
Consider the Yamaka Sutta:

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling,
perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as
the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.” “What do you think, friend Yamaka, do
you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling,
without perception, without volitional formations, without
consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death’?”
SN 22.85

From this we can draw four conclusions:

It is not appropriate to regard the Tathagata as possessing or consisting of the aggregates taken together as real and actual

It is not appropriate to regard the Tathagata as not-possessing the aggregates or without them taken together as real and actual

The Tathagata is not to be regarded as real and actual

This is true both for future lives (the focus of Yamaka's question) as well as the present life

If this is so, then it was entirely appropriate to refer to the Tathagata as existing in his present life, but not to do so with the presupposition that the Tathagata was 'real and actual', right? It was faultless to refer to the Tathagata as merely existing conventionally, right?
If this is so, then why is it a fault to refer to the Tathagata as merely existing conventionally in a future life? Indeed, Yamaka was rebuked for denying this very thing, right?!
With this question I'm interested in the perspective and answers from all the Buddhist traditions.
NOTE: Some may see an apparent contradiction between SN 5.10 and SN 22.85 but it is cleared up by understanding the difference between 'convention' and 'real and actual'

This question is inspired from discussion about this answer to another question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/45064/13375

Did you notice how "do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.” of Yamaka Sutta contradicts the chariot metaphor of SN 5.10?

I think it is a useful contradiction - thanks for pointing it out! - but I don't perceive a true contradiction: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49556/is-there-a-true-contradiction-between-sn-5-10-and-sn-22-85

I must read the entire question later. However, to answer the title of the question: the Pali suttas have a number of examples of speaking about the 'conventional self' in past and future lives (eg. MN 81, MN 123 and MN 143).
Personally, I regard all of this as "fake dhamma" composed under the ambitions of King Ashoka, when probably the Jataka, Buddhavamsa and Apadana (which are all about literal past lives) were composed. For example:

MN 81 (which says "I was" in a past life) contradicts SN 22.79 (which says any recollect of the past is not-self and mere aggregates).
MN 81 includes the phrase 'ahaṃ tena samayena') found numerously in the later day Buddhavamsa.
MN 123 (where a new born infant says "I am") contradicts MN 64 (which says a new born infant cannot have "identity").
MN 143 contradicts other suttas that say Anathapindikovada was a stream-enterer. If Anathapindikovada was a stream-enterer, he obviously understood the dhamma of non-attachment spoken in MN 143, which MN 143 says Anathapindikovada never heard before.

It is both from chronological point of view and as a class of poetical
composition, [that] the Pali Apadāna ranks with the Buddhavaṁsa and
Cariyāpiṭaka. According to the traditional enumeration of the Buddhist
canonical texts, these are reckoned as the last three works of the
Khuddaka Nikāya. Even from the doctrinal point of view the three works
together show the Mahāyāna [OMG!] Buddhism in the making.
Buddhakhetta and Buddhāpadāna by Mr. Dwijendralal Barua, M.A

Hmm, I'll let you take your time, but are you saying MN 140 is also likely "fake dhamma" in your view? I also fail to see how MN 81 contradicts SN 22.79...

SN 22.79. is properly translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, here: https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi. It does not use the word "lives". The Pali nivasa does not mean "lives". SN 22.79 says the past is mere aggregates and not self. Therefore, cannot be "my past", as MN 81 says.

I don't understand how you think it is contradictory? Do you think the Buddha was incapable of remembering his past as Gotama after he sat under the tree and became enlightened? Was he not able to say "my past" as Gotama faultlessly?

This is a lot to take in and i've tried to read as carefully as i can.
As i understand it, when you say hypostatic you mean something close to 'a background element which is instrumental to knowledge & vision or simply something upon which a person's experience inherently depends, as a soul, an invisible personal element apart from this worldly phenomena, it is transcendental to the world & nature itself.
I don't understand why you assume this;

speaking of the self in other lives in the same continuity is strictly forbidden as always contradicting anatman and necessarily presupposing hypostatic existence.

Isn't this what the Bhikkhus did when speaking of Pukkusati being reborn? Were they not there speaking about a being in a future existence by the name of a previous birthname and were not censored for this? This happens more in the Sutta;

'Venerable sir, Anathapindika the householder is diseased, in pain, severely ill.
...'It would be good if Ven. Sariputta would visit Anathapindika's
home, out of sympathy for him.'" ...[so they visit him]... Then Ven.
Sariputta and Ven. Ananda, having given this instruction to
Anathapindika the householder, got up from their seats and left. Then,
not long after they left, Anathapindika the householder died and
reappeared in the Tusita heaven. Then Anathapindika the deva's son, in
the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the
entirety of Jeta's Grove, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival,
bowed down to him and stood to one side. As he was standing there, he
addressed the Blessed One with this verse:
This blessed Jeta's Grove, home to the community of seers, where there
dwells the Dhamma King:   the source of rapture for me.
Action, clear-knowing, & mental qualities,[1]  virtue, the highest
[way of] life:    through this are mortals purified,  not through clan
or wealth.
Thus the wise, seeing their own benefit, investigating the Dhamma
appropriately, should purify themselves right there.
As for Sariputta:     any monk who has gone beyond,   at best can only
equal him     in discernment, virtue, & calm. That is what Anathapindika
the deva's son said. The Teacher approved. Then Anathapindika the
deva's son, [knowing,] "The Teacher has approved of me," bowed down to
him, circled him three times, keeping him to his right, and then
disappeared right there.
Then when the night had past, The Blessed One addressed the monks:
"Last night, monks, a certain deva's son in the far extreme of the
night, his extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta's Grove,
came to me and, on arrival, bowed down to me and stood to one side. As
he was standing there, he addressed me with this verse:
This blessed Jeta's Grove, home to the community of seers, where there
dwells the Dhamma King:   the source of rapture for me.
Action, clear-knowing, & mental qualities, virtue, the highest [way
of] life:     through this are mortals purified,  not through clan or
wealth.
Thus the wise, seeing their own benefit, investigating the Dhamma
appropriately, should purify themselves right there.
As for Sariputta:     any monk who has gone beyond,   at best can only
equal him     in discernment, virtue, & calm. "That is what the deva's
son said. And [thinking], 'The Teacher has approved of me,' he bowed
down to me, circled me three times, and then disappeared right there."
When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Lord, that
must have been Anathapindika the deva's son. Anathapindika the
householder had supreme confidence in Ven. Sariputta."
"Very good, Ananda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced
what can be arrived at through logic. That was Anathapindika the
deva's son, and no one else." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.143.than.html

I think think is close as they refer to a certain 'Deva's son' as Anathapindika. Maybe you can clarify the controversy for me and tell whether i am close with hypostatic meaning.

Don’t dwell too much on the words “hypostatic existence” other than to say it’s meaning generality is the same as what you might call “inherent existence” or “intrinsic existence” or “real genuine existence” such as referenced in the Yamaka sutta.

As for “Isn't this what the Bhikkhus did when speaking of Pukkusati being reborn? Were they not there speaking about a being in a future existence by the name of a previous birthname and were not censored for this?” ...  No, I don’t think that is what they did and I do not read the sutta as the Buddha rebuking them in any way at all. Rather, he answered their straightforward question with a straightforward answer that also did the same. The Buddha correctly answered about what happened to Pukasatti after he was killed by a cow.

I will try to amend the question to provide more clarity...

yeah, I don't think this question is meant for you as you don't ascribe to the controversy. i'd rather it answered by those who genuinely believe conventional rebirth can not be faultlessly spoken of.

Denying rebirth-of-self view while clinging to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism and brings the unenlightened to hedonism.
Denying rebirth-of-self view after discarding self view is the noble right view. Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.
Rebirth view can be used as skillful means (upaya) to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation. Rebirth view is the middle way and is the right view with effluents/ taints.
The detailed explanation based on suttas for this, can be found in this answer.

The problem with this answer is that it discards too much. While your long answer does indeed refute 'real and actual' rebirth it cannot be used to refute merely conventional rebirth. The same logic you use in your long answer that you link refers to 'there is no this world' and so on. If you use it to refute conventional rebirth then you can also use it to refute the conventional self in this life.

BTW, you also implicitly suggest in your long answer that kamma is also merely an 'upaya'. The suttas you mention also talk about kamma being active in this life. So if you use that logic to refute conventional kamma applying in the next life it can also be used to refute conventional kamma from pertaining in this life. Is that what you wish? Is it not conventionally true that we can experience the fruits of our actions in this very life?

@YesheTenley "I am the heir of my kamma. The kamma I generate results in my future consequences including future rebirth state" is the upaya. Please also see old kamma and new kamma from SN 35.146. Old kamma comes from volition and it's meant to be felt. New kamma is done now but who caused the old kamma, is not mentioned.

How do you answer to the charge that you're refuting too much? Do you see that the logic you are using to refute 'real and actual' rebirth (which is correct) can also be used to refute 'real and actual' self (which is correct) but that if you use it to refute conventional rebirth (incorrect) you can also use it to refute conventional self (clearly incorrect)?

Look at the suttas you use in your long answer and in each case where they deny either the self or rebirth see if they are refuting 'real and actual' or 'conventional' or if you think you can find one that is refuting both. I claim that in each sutta what is being refuted is 'real and actual'

@YesheTenley Another one is SN 12.17. What you experience as suffering is neither caused by you nor another. Instead, it is explained by dependent origination.

Please address the context of the questions: the difference between 'real and actual' and 'conventional'. We know that it is faultless to talk about the merely conventional self. We know that it is a major fault to deny the merely conventional self. There is not a single sutta anyone can find that denies the conventional self. Agreed?
Why then do you use suttas that deny the 'real and actual' self to deny both 'real and actual' rebirth (correct) and conventional rebirth (incorrect)?
The same is true for kamma. Are you here saying that an enlightened one can deny conventional kamma??

@YesheTenley I would say that if one holds self-view, then conventional rebirth would be true. For one without self-view i.e. a stream enterer, any next-life rebirth is not sensible as that is an extension of self-view.

Do you also say that if one holds self-view, then conventional self would be true. For one without self-view i.e. a stream enterer, any this life next moment is not sensible as that is an extension of self-view??

It seems to me your logic says that conventional self, conventional rebirth, conventional kamma are all fine for one with right view with effluents, but that for one with right view with NO effluents that conventional self, conventional rebirth, conventional kamma are all denied. But that goes too far as conventional self is not to be discarded. To deny the conventional self is nihilism/annihilationism -> 'There is no this world, there is no next world'

@YesheTenley Without self view, the next life moments are only explained as momentary rebirths based on dependent origination, strung together by craving. Although self-view is overcome, conceit or self-habit continues. Please see Khemaka Sutta for that.

For one without self view are those 'momentary rebirths based on dependent origination' real and actual or merely conventional?

For one without self view when they look at someone else still tainted by the effluents do they deny the conventional rebirth of that person in the next life?

Regardless, you're not addressing the crux: your logic denying conventional rebirth is also used to deny the conventional self which we know is a major fault. That should tell you to not trust it and go back and look.


text:
Timeframe of meditation's relaxing effect
I'd like to meditate on the breath to calm myself and diminish stress. Yet, when I meditate on the breath, I typically feel more stressed afterwards.
How long should I practice this technique before seeing effects? How can I tell if it actually relaxes me?

Can you be more descriptive about your practice? The phrase 'meditate on the breath' can point at a number of different practices, not all of which are (or are meant to be) relaxing.

If one just focuses on the feelings & sensations of the breathing, the feeling of air flowing in & out as you draw in & out, if one wants one can be thinking about the breathing if it helps to cut off distracting thinking, then one creates a bit of distance from compulsive thinking and it relaxes due to not be given attention, out of sight - out of mind.
First gross themes of thinking associated with sensuality, anger, worry, doubt, lust, thoughts about past & future and general disturbance cease before thinking is calmed altogether.
Breathing get's progressively stilled in the process in as far as the perception of breathing goes.
I guess it will take a while to start calming down, 3-15 minutes and 15-45+ minutes for breathing to become very subtle to the point where it's shallow & rare at which point one is quite secluded from unwholesome tendencies.
If one is doing walking meditation beforehand or is otherwise in a good mood one might not need any long time to attain deep samadhi as the mind is already secluded and saturated with joy & ease and at that point this is an opening and mind will direct itself based on it's inclination to a further settling in & enjoyment and one might then experience what people would consider mystical deep meditations of various kinds.
Sometimes focusing on breathing is not effective in cutting off distracting thinking and one might need to try other things to eliminate those such as directing the mind to a different theme associated with development of good qualities, examining the fault of the distracting thoughts & etc

When, indeed, bhikkhus, evil unskillful thoughts due to reflection on an adventitious object are eliminated, when they disappear, and the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated just within (his subject of meditation), through his reflection on an object connected with skill, through his pondering on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts, his endeavoring to be without attentiveness and reflection as regards those thoughts or through his restraining, subduing, and beating down of the evil mind by the good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate, that bhikkhu is called a master of the paths along which thoughts travel. The thought he wants to think, that, he thinks; the thought he does not want to think, that, he does not think. He has cut down craving, removed the fetter, rightly mastered pride, and made an end of suffering." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html

One should examine one's mind before sitting down and resolving on developing perception of breathing and see if it is suitable. Sometimes the theme of tranquility and concentration isn't appropriate as it won't rouse a  sluggish mind.
Therefore one should also pay attention to one's themes of thought and not just ignore thinking altogether which is appropriate sometimes but ineffective otherwise.
In example if one is lazy & sluggish then you can sit for an hour and it will be close to taking a nap. One would here be better served spending 3-5 minutes on stirring up energy somehow and then doing anapanasati when one's energy is aroused. Same thing with lustful thoughts, the mind is simply too inflamed to focus on a bodily sensation and can be more effectively calmed by giving attention to the theme of eg unattractiveness, danger or another countering theme.
In terms of general quality of life effects, these should be immediate & proportional to the work you put in as the peace you set yourself up to experience by living disciplined & practicing mental hygiene should translate directly to more joy & happiness, if it doesn't then one wouldn't be doing it.

Yes. It does take time. Sariputta stresses this in DN34:

DN34:1.2.20: What one thing is hard to comprehend?
DN34:1.2.21: The heart’s immersion of immediate result.

I also want to add a crucial point. When there is such level of calm & distance from unwholesome themes that evil & unskillful thoughts do not come to mind. At this very point this is already a full opening and mind can go even to absorption based on the cessation principle if that is it's inclination. To make it it's inclination one must ponder the skillful themes a lot because what one gives a lot of attention becomes the inclination.

Assumimg good technique, in order to get a relaxation response, you're looking at about 15 to 25 minutes.  Once you pass that, you're meditation session can be said to truly begin.  This can be relaxing, but it also can bring up psychological and other unaddressed issues as the flurry of your day in no longer keeping them suppressed.  Sometimes, meditators can find that they feel more stressed after a session than when they began.  And once the energy starts to rise?  Well, let's just say there's a reason I recommend against long sits before bed!

How long should I practice this technique before seeing effects?

It's not really possible to say due to beings having different past kammas. Looking for results is a hindrance in and off itself.
Just try to practice 5-15 minutes in the morning and/or evening everyday, make a great effort to keep the 5 Precepts and if you practice Samatha meditation, try to find a quiet place to practice (at least in the beginning).
If you do that systematically and consistently, then at some point you will begin to experience the fruits of the practice. At that point you could increase your sitting time to 30-60 minutes - whatever you're comfortable with.

How can I tell if it actually relaxes me?

The mind and body will begin to relax meaning fewer thoughts and longer between thoughts, bodily pains, tensions etc. starts to loosen and disappear. If you practice correctly then at some point the Nimitta will begin to arise (it grants access to the Jhanas).
My advice is to not worry about all that now. Just start doing a little bit of consistent meditation practice every morning and evening.
Oh and lastly, it's always great to find a teacher that can guide one on the Path.