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

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

Thank you for your time and may you be well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Few can do and most can not.

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

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

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

I think most monks have access to these things.

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

Would you consider swimming such exercise ie?

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

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

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

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

The Theravada Bhikkhu Patimokkha states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

From MN 22:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it right to use the term rebirth in the Buddhist context?
As I delve into the Buddhist literature deeper and deeper, particularly the Theravāda sutta literature, I am getting convinced more and more that when we use the term ‘rebirth’, and more so, the grosser English equivalents like ‘metempsychosis’ and ‘re-incarnation’, to signify what the Buddha talked about when he referred to the apparent continuity of the ‘life process’ after death, we are getting it all wrong. I have till now also been unable to find the equivalent of the Vedic term ‘Punarjanma’, which is used so very profusely in the Brāhmanic literature like the Upaniṣads and the Purāṇas. The Sanskrit/Pāli word that comes up again and again in the Buddhist context is ‘bhava’ which has been translated as ‘becoming’, perhaps rightly so. But, would it be right to translate this very word also as rebirth, re-incarnation, punarjanma, and the like, when it seems so very clear that bhava does not stand at all for any of these, because the very notion of rebirth/re-incarnation/punarjanma carries within it the concept of a permanent entity moving from birth to birth?
I remember a beautiful metaphor from somewhere that compares the notion of this recurrence of saṁsāra in Hinduism with that in Buddhism. If this recurrence is like a necklace of pearls in Hinduism where the pearls stand for various janmas and the string for the eternal ātman, in Buddhism it is like a pile of coins where each coin, each birth, thought dependent for its support on the coin below, on the birth that came before, does not have any eternal binding entity holding them together, only the unseen ‘gravity’ of karma. Isn’t it right, therefore, that the actual term in the Buddhist sense, used for this recurrence of lives, ought to be bhava, or, to be technically more exact, punarbhava/punabbhava/’re-becoming’/recurrent becoming, rather that punarjanma/rebirth/re-incarnation/metempsychosis?

I think the word is paccājāyati

Related: How can we know the original meaning of a word with certainty?

Related: Different Pali words translated as ‘rebirth’ & ‘reborn? (from SuttaCentral)

The Sujato link is poorly reasoned. A better external link is the following: Exploring 'rebirth' in the Pali suttas https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?6671-Exploring-rebirth-in-the-Pali-suttas

It is very clear that the english word 'rebirth' in Buddhist writing and practice causes a whole host of confusions and misunderstandings. This is evident in this forum with the myriad questions and debates that have erupted as a consequence. As an added complexity, not all of the confusions and misunderstandings are related or easily dispelled in the same way.
Now, with that said I don't quite know how to answer the question, "Is it right to use the term rebirth in the Buddhist context?"
Let's grant the supposition that the answer is yes and see what the consequences are:

The word 'rebirth' could be replaced with another english word or words
The word could be omitted entirely with a blank in its place

The problem with #1 is that this has already been tried. In fact, numerous other words have been suggested instead. You've mentioned two - metempsychosis and re-incarnation - but many more have been used in the past with transmigration being another heavily used synonym.
Some on this forum are heavily biased against the word 'rebirth' thinking it causes more confusion than not and have insisted that 'rebirth' was never uttered by the Buddha. Which is true insofar as the Buddha did not speak english.
For me, I see all of this arguing over the 'right' word to use as rather beside the point. I don't think it is true that there exists one or more 'right' words that would magically dispel all the confusion and misunderstanding that come along with the word 'rebirth' or the ideas that the word is used to convey.
My go to strategy to try and dispel the confusions and misunderstandings that the word 'rebirth' and the ideas behind it often inspire is to focus not on 'rebirth' from life-to-life, but rather 'rebirth' from moment-to-moment. Why? Because I've found that most Buddhists or people learning about Buddhism have an easier time thinking about and granting that 'rebirth' from moment-to-moment happens and can relate it back to their own daily moment-to-moment lives in an experiential way. And a lot of the same questions that pop-up in 'rebirth' from life-to-life also pop-up in a natural way in 'rebirth' from moment-to-moment.
Let's take your contention that, "the very notion of rebirth/re-incarnation/punarjanma carries within it the concept of a permanent entity moving from birth to birth?"... that is true of 'rebirth' from moment-to-moment as well isn't it? Don't we all have the sense and experience that there is some permanent entity moving from moment-to-moment? So if we can resolve how it can be that 'rebirth' from moment-to-moment happens all the while not having some permanent entity moving from moment-to-moment, - and it most undoubtedly does happen as we can all attest experientially, right? - then perhaps we can take that and extrapolate what it means for 'rebirth' to happen from life-to-life.

Thanks @Yeshe Tenley, but, my contention is that the Buddha is very clear about the fact that there is no permanent entity, no soul, that moves from janma to janma. In fact, as you know, this is one of the most important tenets of Buddhism. When we use the term 'rebirth' loosely for what actually is a recurrent becoming, it creates confusion in the laiety. For example, most Hindus believe that the Buddha too believed in punarjanma and, by extension, in a soul that moves from birth to birth. Some even call him 'Mahatma' Buddha which means 'the great soul ' Buddha!

This is true @SushilFotedar, but there are very real downsides to not using the word rebirth or something similar as well. One of those downsides is that the laiety will be confused and incredulous - and rightly so - if you tell them the Buddha never used the word rebirth or something similar in the suttas as he manifestly did. You also risk the very serious downside of the laiety believing that the Buddha did not teach the fruits of kamma manifesting in later lives and was an annihilationist which he manifestly was not.

Finally, you risk incredulity when they discover that for certain audiences and at certain times the Buddha was silent or did not refute reincarnation as understood by non-Buddhists of his time for fear that they'd fall into annihilationism which he considered the more harmful misunderstanding of his doctrine compared to those who would fall into eternalism.

I agree with your assessment @Yeshe Tenley. Thanks a lot.

I will comment more later and provide sutta quotes. Initial points:

As said in the question, there appears no commonly used equivalent to punarjanma (puna-jati) in the Pali, apart from "dukkhā jāti punappunaṃ" found in Dhammapada 153. However, the meaning of "dukkhā jāti punappunaṃ" depends on the meaning of the word "jati". It is very clear by the Pali suttas as well as commentary such as the Visuddhimagga the word "jati" has numerous different contextual meanings and ultimately does not have the core meaning of "reincarnation", let alone "physical birth". The simplest example is the use of the word "jātiyā" in MN 86; kiṃjātiko found in many suttas; or the common use of the verb "jāyati" to refer to coming to be of mental phenomena, such as love, sorrow, rapture, etc.

In the words commonly translations of "rebirth", the words "jati", "janati" or "jayati", which have the root "jan", are generally not found. Instead, the words commonly translated as "rebirth" are based in the root "pad" rather than "jan".

However, there is the word "paccājāyati" (which does not include "puna") however this is rarely used and an investigation of it may find it does not mean "reincarnation" but, instead, "reclassification". "Paccājāyati" appears to be found in the context about the status of a "jati", such as "human", "god", "ghost", "animal", etc, rather than is used to describe the destinations or results of kamma, the later being by far the most common context where the translation "rebirth" is used. Here, in respect to kammic inheritance, words rooted in "pad" (such as "upapajjati", "upapanna", etc) are most commonly found. Note: MN 148 clearly shows the word "upapajjati" does not literally have any connection to "reincarnation" but merely means "to follow from the former".

As for the word "bhava", this is one of the three "asava" ("mental outflows"; together with sensuality and ignorance). It is obviously very wrong to say "bhava" means "reincarnation" because "bhava" is simply and literally a state of mind. For example, MN 44 says "bhava" is a cause of "identity". MN 121 says "bhava" is a "perception".

Very beautifully explained@Dhammadhatu but the way you have analysed bhava has left me a wee bit confused. As a link in the chain of paticcasamuppada, for example, does it not stand for the 'becoming' that samsara is? In what context does it become an 'asava', and, would you please also give the details of MN44 and MN121, wherein bhava becomes a 'cause of identity' and a 'perception' respectively?

What happened to asava being a type of liquor? Why is everyone translating it as "outflow" these days? :)

i am the only one i am aware of using 'outflow'. Outflow describes how it flows out or erupts.

@AndreiVolkov It's in the PTS dictionary, "1. spirit, the intoxicating extract or secretion of a tree or flower  -- 2. discharge from a sore [etc]", see also What is effluent?

From a meditation perspective, the important understanding is "outflow" or "eruption".

I don't know, to me it seems like they are simply intoxicants. Nothing flows out of me, as it were. To me, meditation is an act of emotional sobering up.

meditation does not create asava to dry them up. oh dear

Appamadena sampadetha - stop drinking to sober up.

omg.......................

Good question, well thought out and described in detail. Your proposal 're-becoming' may be better than the other words, at not implying an immutable soul underlying, compared to 're-birth' and 're-incarnation', 'transmigration', etc.
But it has its problems as well. The biggest one being that it doesn't easily convey you're talking about rebecoming after a physical death.
In the end, it comes down to what people agree on for a convention, or official dictionary definition. Theravadans usually prefer 'rebirth' over 'reincarnation' and the other words. Originally in the dictionary, 'rebirth' didn't even have to do with physical death and what happens after. That's probably why Theravadins chose 'rebirth' over the more widely used 'reincarnation', and other words.
Now that the Buddhist idea of 'rebirth' is in some dictionaries, it seems to be more commonly understood in Theravadin Buddhist context does not entail a permanent soul underlying. Other religions though, like Hinduism, use 'rebirth', 'reincarnation', with a soul/atta.
As long as the convention ('rebirth' in this case) is basically well understood, it's best to stick with it, otherwise you'll waste a lot of time having to explain to people what your new word means exactly.
The time to abandon words, is when it suddenly achieves wide adoption with a completely different and wrong meaning (compared to the original). For example, 'gay' used to mean 'happy and joyful', but once the common definition became 'homosexual', then you have to respect convention and change to a different word or risk being misunderstood.

I agree with you @frankk. Words are dynamic entities that  many a time acquire  meanings different from the original  as you have beautifully explained with the example of the word 'gay'. If by consensus we agree to use the word 'rebirth' for the continuity of the life-process after death while keeping in mind that it does not signify an eternal soul moving from life to life, it should be enough, I think. Thanks a lot.

Dhammapada 153 - 154 in Pali:

Anekajātisaṃsāraṃ,
sandhāvissaṃ anibbisaṃ;
Gahakāraṃ gavesanto,
dukkhā jāti punappunaṃ.
Gahakāraka diṭṭhosi,
puna gehaṃ na kāhasi;
Sabbā te phāsukā bhaggā,
gahakūṭaṃ visaṅkhataṃ;
Visaṅkhāragataṃ cittaṃ,
taṇhānaṃ khayamajjhagā.

Translation of Dhammapada 153 - 154 by Ven. Buddharakkhita:

Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered in vain,
seeking the builder of this house (of life). Repeated birth is indeed
suffering!

O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again.
For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
craving.

Repeated birth here is "jāti punappunaṃ".
From Ven. Nyanatiloka's Pali dictionary entry on "jāti":

jāti：'birth'，comprises the entire embryonic process beginning with conception and ending with parturition．
＂The birth of beings belonging to this or that order of beings，their
being born，their conception （okkanti） and springing into
existence，the manifestation of the groups
（corporeality，feeling，perception，mental formations，consciousness；
s．khandha），the acquiring of their sensitive organs：this is called
birth＂ （D．22）．For its conditioning by the prenatal kamma-process
（kamma-bhava； s．bhava），s．paṭiccasamuppāda （9，10），paṭisandhi．

One of Wisdomlib's entries on jāti states:

Jati or jata means arising or coming up.

The Dhp 154 commentary by Ven. Buddharakkhita states:

According to the (traditional) commentary, these verses are the
Buddha's "Song of Victory," his first utterance after his
Enlightenment. The house is individualized existence in samsara,
the house-builder craving, the
rafters the passions and the ridge-pole ignorance.

From these, and from other references on clinging aggregates (SN 22.48) and Nibbana-element with residue remaining (Iti 44), my take on this is that "birth" simply means the arising of one's individuality (the self, the music of the Vina Sutta), based on the operation of the five clinging aggregates (the lute) working together in the way described by dependent origination.
And repeated birth refers to repeated occurrences of this, sustained by craving as described in SN 44.9.
Ven. Buddharakkhita's commentary above supports this.

Another interesting fact is that in some suttas like AN 5.28, "past lives" is the usual translation for "pubbenivāsaṃ", which literally means "previous homes". "Homes" and "houses"  (from Dhp 154) sound similar, don't you think?

In suttas Buddha uses two kinds of language. One language employs worldly concepts such as rebirth. Another language introduces technical concepts such as Dependent Origination.
The first type of language is very simplistic and is meant for beginners, the technical language is much more precise and is meant for advanced students.

All possible birth is truth either a smallest moment or reincarnation, but the reality truth is the smallest particle which can see after getting strong enough concentration meditation and insight meditation. This is the real birth which imagined by the ordinary as imagination truth or imagination fake. It something like we think atom is car but it is atom actually, but the reality is the smaller, the faster, unique, and complicated causing each others than atom which we have known.
Birthing reality is depending various causes, so birthing reality is  uncontrollable, none self. When the practitioners' concentration meditation and insight meditation are strong enough, they are going to see the truth that...

SantatiGhana: Birthing reality is arising and vanishing more than trillion moments a second because of causes, but ordinary person imagine they all are same long living for 1 minutes or 1 days or one life.
SamūhaGhana: Birthing reality is so small than atom or particle (paramāṇū's qualities), but ordinary person imagine they all are same one loaf for 1 minutes or 1 days or one life or forever.
KiccaGhana: Each birthing reality has difference jobs/specifications/qualifications when they causing their effect together, but ordinary person imagine they all are same doing/doer for 1 minutes or 1 days or one life or forever.
ĀrammaṇaGhana: Each mind and mind factors process has difference object,  but ordinary person imagine they all has same object for 1 minutes or 1 days or one life or forever.

So, birthing reality is  uncontrollable, none self. And then the practitioner meditate above view with the other wholesome practices, then 3 characteristics are going to appear clearer and clearer. The whole world appear as vanished every smallest moment. It's good to see like that, no fear because it is truth either we can see it or not. This seeing is leading to finish the whole broken world.

One of the difficulties of translation is that it operates on multiple levels. The translation of an individual word often depends on the meaning of the sentence it is embedded in, the meaning of a sentence depends on the nature of the text it is embedded in, and the nature of a given text relies on subtleties of the author's worldview. This is particularly difficult with spiritual and philosophical texts, which are written from esoteric worldviews, in ancient or specialize languages.
The point is that we ought to carry words lightly until we can look back and understand them correctly; this calls for a deep level of translation, not a shallow investigation of the meaning of words.
But in the spirit of the question, the best English word to use here would probably be the (somewhat arcane and obscure) term 'recrudescence'. Recrudescence means "the recurrence of an undesirable condition" (literally "the return of the raw"): it's most commonly used with a disease, in that a disease which is not completely eradicated will hide out in odd corners of the body or of the world, and burst out again when conditions are appropriate for it. We might say, for instance, that shingles is a recrudescence of chicken pox, since the varicella virus that causes chicken pox in children lies dormant in nerve tissue until the decades-long immunity fades and it can replicate again in older adults.
In the Buddhist sense, the 'unpleasant conditions' are states of tanhā (craving and attachment), which constantly resurface and recur until the root cause is removed. The notion of reincarnation arises because (again, on a somewhat shallow philosophical level) many people presume that the egoic self is the root cause of tanhā, and so the egoic self must itself be recurring, and will continue to recur across lifetimes. But as I see it, the egoic self is epiphenomenal, not causal — the sense of 'I' as an object is a result of our attachments, not the source of it — so there is no intrinsic egoic self to be transferred. Instead, we have an epidemiological situation: our 'unpleasant conditions' don't just recur within ourselves, but spread and take root in others. The tanhā that forges a sense of 'I' (an 'I' which we hold so intimately and personally) can spread through and lie dormant in society, awaiting a moment to break out as 'I' again. We don't reincarnate in any personal self; we create the conditions in which egos of the sort we hold close to ourselves can recrudesce in other times and places.

Thanks @Ted Wrigley. The use of the word 'recrudescence' is so very original and to the point, more so because 'punabbhava' actually is a 'dis-ease' of existence.

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


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

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

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

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


text:
What's the meaning of the Buddhist boy's message to Neo in the movie The Matrix?
In this scene from the first movie in The Matric trilogy, when Neo goes to meet the Oracle he meets the Buddhist boy who shows him that he can bend the spoon and then tells him that he can do the same when he can realize that 'there is no spoon', that when you see the spoon bending, it is really yourself that's bending.
Does this message fit with the actual Buddhist teaching of Emptiness? Does it have any message from the Zen philosophy?  Or it's just a misrepresentation, kind of  Pop Buddhist philosophy to appeal to the audience?
If it aligns with Buddhist philosophy can somebody explain to me what it is?

Why do you think it's a Buddhist boy? Buddha said talking about whether things exist or not is not to be done... an10.69

Not by a shaven head does a man become a samana

@8527 Perhaps I'm too literal-minded but I don't see exactly that listed as a forbidden topic in AN 10.69. And some talk like that might be fundamental, isn't it? I mean, like in SN 5.10, whether a being exists (or assumed), and whether and when suffering arises. And other "things", e.g. there's talk about whether a chariot exists.

It is in the PST version as Thanissaro has it https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.069.than.html

Ha, a different translation! :-) The word being itibhavābhavakathaṃ, translated variously as "conversations about whether things exist" and "conversations about becoming this or that".

Afaik Sujato follows his teacher here but i wasn't aware of this being a controversy and your pali is as good or better than mine as far as i can tell so i can't help you

I presume each translator has their reason. My Pali is elementary -- fwiw I think of bhava as associated with "becoming", like in Metta-Bhavana or Bhavacakra; but it's used for (or translated as) "existing" or "abiding" too.

@8527 he's known as buddha boy in pop-culture and the matrix aficionado circles...

It means that so-called reality is actually our interpretation. When our perspective changes our experienced reality changes. This is why the boy says, don't try to change reality (bend the spoon). Change your mind, and your reality will change automatically.
There is no enemy to fight, no prize to attain. It is your mind that creates these interpretations "enemy" and "prize". Therefore, "there's no spoon".

It makes sense within the context of the movie -- being that "the Matrix" is a "simulation".
I've read Thich Nhat Hanh describe "inter-being" as follows:

Suppose I hold a leaf in my hand. What do you see?
A leaf is a leaf; it is not a flower. But in fact, when we look
deeply in to the leaf, we can see many things. We can see
the plant, we can see the sunshine, we can see the clouds,
we can see the earth. When we utter the word “leaf”, we
have to be aware that a leaf is made of non-leaf elements.
If we remove the non-leaf elements, such as the sunshine,
the clouds, and the soil, there will be no leaf left. So it is
with our bodies and ourselves. We’re not the same as, nor
are we separate from, other beings. We’re connected to
everything, and everything is alive.

I think that's one of the aspects of emptiness ("If we remove the non-leaf elements there will be no leaf left").
I think that Zen is a bit ambivalent on the subject:

At the first level on the path he saw mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers.
On the second level of the path he saw that mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers.
And at a third level he saw once again mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers.

I think of it as a partial truth; possibly extremist (i.e. one side not the other, not the middle way); possibly dangerous, useful to justify immorality (e.g. "it doesn't matter if you kill people because they don't exist anyway"); possibly conceptual proliferation, letting intellectual theories run away without regard to fact. But partially true.
I think some of the facts of the matter are ably explained by the Zen story, Nothing Exists:

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: “The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received.”
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
“If nothing exists,” inquired Dokuon, “where did this anger come from?”

The meaning of the phrase -- the way in which it may be meaningful or useful outside the movie -- might be illustrated by Persig's old South Indian Monkey Trap ...

... the most
striking example of value rigidity I can think of is the old South Indian
Monkey Trap, which depends on value rigidity for its effectiveness. The trap
consists of a hollowed-out coconut chained to a stake. The coconut has
some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole. The hole is big
enough so that the monkey's hand can go in, but too small for his fist with
rice in it to come out. The monkey reaches in and is suddenly trapped...by
nothing more than his own value rigidity. He can't revalue the rice. He
cannot see that freedom without rice is more valuable than capture with it.
The villagers are coming to get him and take him away. They're coming
closer -- closer! -- now! What general advice...not specific advice...but what
general advice would you give the poor monkey in circumstances like this?

... i.e. "there is no trap".
One other thing from the movie, as Neo gains in ability they say of him, "He's starting to believe." Focus on non-existence (e.g. of impediments) can be helpful I guess, another aspect of Buddhism that perhaps isn't so famous in popular culture is a focus on developing factors of enlightenment.

What's the meaning of the Buddhist boy's message to Neo in the movie The Matrix?

It means that when one truly understands (through insight meditation) the Three Marks of Existence, then one can become free from suffering - no more ignorance and craving. One has become Enlightened, one has reached Nibbana.

In this scene from the first movie in The Matric trilogy, when Neo goes to meet the Oracle he meets the Buddhist boy who shows him that he can bend the spoon and then tells him that he can do the same when he can realize that 'there is no spoon', that when you see the spoon bending, it is really yourself that's bending.

That there is no spoon means that there is no permanence, no satisfaction and no control over conditioned existence.
That it is really oneself that is bending means that when ignorance has been dispelled one will finally see only ultimate reality.

Please read this answer to understand papañca (objectification-classification, reification, concept proliferation) in Buddhism.
Please also read the following story from this Quora answer to understand that "there are no ghosts of a woman and child crying at night", it's really just "you".

In the middle of the night I woke up from my sleep and could not go
back to sleep as I was feeling terribly home sick.
At home I was used to a small night light in my room. But there (girls' hostel), there
was no night light. It was pitch dark.
I was just tossing in my bed and then I heard this bone chilling high
pitched cry.
It was like a woman crying in pain. After few minutes (or seconds)
another cry was mixed with the first. It was like a baby cry.
These two sounds continued for, what seemed like very long time. But
it might be for one or two minutes or may be less than a minute.
I was damn scared. I didn’t know what to do. Everything was new for
me.
I wanted to go to some other girl’s bed and sleep beside her. But I
was afraid that I may be scolded.
I was surprised how other girls were sleeping (soundly)
when there is such high
pitched horrifying noise. ...
The whole night I could not sleep thinking about that sound. In the
morning I sat on my bed and started to weep.
One girl, three or four years senior to me, came to me and asked why I
was crying.
I told her what happened at mid night and how scared I felt.
She laughed and cajoled me.
“Do you know what that sound is?” she asked.
“May be ghosts?”
“No, they are cats!”
“Cats? Are you sure?”
“Yes one male cat and one female cat. We are hearing those sounds from
two years. We are used to those sounds. So we are not afraid any more.
When I heard it first time, even I could not sleep that night”
“But they were very loud”
“Because one side of our building is empty in the night, and
because the cats are in underground floor, the sound reverberates and
makes it more horrific”. ...
Later I learned that cats make this weird sound when they are mating.
The male cat’s cry will be more horrifying.

Hi ruben2020, thank you for the answer. I did not understand how the story is similar to Neo's position. In the story, the girls completely imagine the ghost, the ghost is not there at all, while Neo is not imagining but clearly sees the spoon and even bends it. Thank you for the link to papanca, it explains a lot.

@TheWhiteCloud The mind objectifies the spoon, classifies it and gives it significance relative to the self. For e.g. a person seeing another person bending her spoon, might become angry. This is because of papanca.

"There is no spoon" can mean a bunch of things in the Buddhadharma. It could be that "there is no spoon" because the spoon is actually a composite of mereological reals and has no independent existence as a "spoon" apart from its components. Once, while she was meditating deeply in the dark woods, Vajrābhikṣuṇī ("Vajirābhikkhunī" in Pali) heard the voice of Mara. Mara asked her:

Who created this being? Where is its maker? Where has the being arisen, and where does it cease?”

Sister Vajrā addressed the haughty godling:

Why now do you[, Mara,] assume ‘a being’? Mara, is that your speculative view? This is a heap of sheer formations [i.e. "saṅkhārā"]: here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, the word ‘chariot’ is used, so, when the aggregates exist, there is the convention ‘a being.’ It’s only suffering that comes to be, suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, nothing but suffering ceases.

(SN 5.10 Vajirāsutta)
There is no "being" in the same way as "there is no spoon" and there is "no chariot."

The Matrix film franchise is, prima facie, confusing emptiness as mu only, meaning there is no reality and everything is illusion only. In fact, every western philosophical interpretation or work of scholarship I've read claims that the conventional truth can be used to predict the future.
This is the "middle way"
Or, more generously, it is a demonstration that meditation on emptiness can develop supernormal powers.


text:
So what is a Buddhist and what makes a person a Buddhist?
In brief Devadatta was Buddha's cousin and a monk. He could fly, tried to kill the Buddha, did many bad things and went to hell.

Devadatta did not understand dependent origination correctly; essence of the teacher's message.

If he did he would've been ariya; ariya savaka; 'a learner in training and not liable to go to hell.
Consider this
In Islam, a person who doesn't understand the essence of the prophet's message is considered an outsider.
A muslim belives that there is a god. Whether he is a good or a bad muslim doesn't matter.
If a person doesn't believe in god, holds the view that there is no god, that person is an outsider to Islam.
I am using Islam as just an example.
Buddhism is very different in this regard. It is the only(?) religious designation which doesn't require conformity in belief and is some abomination in that regard.
So was Devadatta a Buddhist?

If he was a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can believe & practice incorrectly; are all humans Buddhists?
If he wasn't a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can't belive wrong things & practice incorrectly; then why do you call ie Mahayana and Theravada followers Buddhists when seeing that they believe different things and pracrice differently?

The word Buddhist is a convention. All words are mere conventions. They have no inherent existence. They are subject to change over time. In fact, it would be an impossible mode of existence for them not to change over time. They are not fixed and rigid things endowed with an inherent meaning in some impossible platonic existence. It is not possible for the word Buddhist - or any word - to be fixed in time with a given definition perfectly understood by all.
Now, this does not mean it doesn't have good or bad definitions. Again, like all words, different people at different times will string together other words and sentences in attempt to define what their understanding is of a given word. Others will come along and dispute this or that part as erroneous, superfluous, or missing some vital ingredient central to their understanding of some given word. There is not some objective and valid answer to the definition of some given word that is bequeathed by the universe at some given time that all must agree to as the correct and uniform definition. To think that there is is quite a misunderstanding of the nature of how words exist.
Of course, this doesn't mean that it is possible to go around claiming no words have any definitions whatsoever since I can call an orange an elephant if I want and no one can say I'm objectively wrong by some universal law handed down by the gods from on high regarding the definition of oranges and elephants. That is also a gross misunderstanding of the nature of how words exist.
So all that said... what is the definition of a Buddhist? I take my definition from Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions which has this to say:

All Buddhist traditions agree that taking refuge in the Three Jewels is the demarcation of becoming a Buddhist.

Which I think is both true and a pretty handy and useful definition.
To your more detailed questions:

If he was a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can believe & practice
incorrectly; are all humans Buddhists?

Of course not. See the above definition which pretty easily leads to the conclusion that not all humans are Buddhists which is of course what we'd expect in common language.

If he wasn't a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can't belive wrong things & practice incorrectly; then why do you call ie Mahayana and Theravada followers Buddhists when seeing that they believe different things and pracrice differently?

Huh? Why do you think that a Buddhist can't believe wrong things?? Anyway, that's not part of the above definition and I'd say inline with what we'd expect with common language so again a win for the above definition.
Hope this helps!

So one must do a ritual at the temple or have a specific set of thoughts occurr?

You can read the book on what taking refuge in the three jewels entails, but no there is no formal ritual. Taking refuge is a Dharma practice that is one of the core practices of Buddhists.

Buddhist is someone who TRIES (correctly or incorrectly, perfectly or imperfectly) to follow the teaching of Buddha and its interpretations by the Buddha's disciples.

Sums it up well

The term "Buddhist" in English applies to just about anyone who associates himself or herself with the broad religion and culture of Buddhism, with all its schools and traditions.
For e.g. it is common in Buddhist majority and minority countries, for a person to call himself "Buddhist" but know nothing much of the teachings and simply visit the Buddhist temple to light joss sticks and get a blessing on Vesak Day. Please see this answer for an example of keys, amulets or other personal objects being blessed by a monk, who chants on them.
By this measure, even Devadatta in the time of the Buddha would be considered a "Buddhist".
Of course, what the Buddha himself thought and taught, can be found in MN 70.
There are people doing it the right way and the wrong way:

And how is enlightenment achieved by gradual training, progress, and
practice? It’s when someone in whom faith has arisen approaches a
teacher. They pay homage, lend an ear, hear the teachings, remember
the teachings, reflect on their meaning, and accept them after
consideration. Then enthusiasm springs up; they make an effort, weigh
up, and persevere. Persevering, they directly realize the ultimate
truth, and see it with penetrating wisdom.
Mendicants, there has not been that faith, that approaching, that
paying homage, that listening, that hearing the teachings, that
remembering the teachings, that reflecting on their meaning, that
acceptance after consideration, that enthusiasm, that making an
effort, that weighing up, or that striving. You’ve lost the way,
mendicants! You’re practicing the wrong way! Just how far have these
foolish people strayed from this teaching and training!

And people who are doing it the right way, can be classified into seven types:

Mendicants, these seven people are found in the world. What seven? One
freed both ways, one freed by wisdom, a personal witness, one attained
to view, one freed by faith, a follower of the teachings, and a
follower by faith.

The details are given in the sutta.

A buddhist is someone who keeps the five precept and takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

Can you explain it in non Buddhist terms? Also what does it mean to keep precepts when only Ariya understand precepts correctly, it is the third fetter right, silabattaparamasa or smth

If person breaks precepts, is he not Buddhist? What about Sarakaani who took to drink alcohol, he didnt keep precept but was Sotapanna abd a good seed said the teacher.

It’s fine if you break the precepts once in a while but you should at least make an effort to keep them. Also, can you give me a link to the sutta where a Sotapanna drink alcohol?

Ven Sagata, drink some pigeon's liquor they said after he defeated Naga with magical powers. Is the reason for the precept. Is Veb Sagata not a Buddhist? He was a monk with magical powers and lived with the Buddha.

Sagata and Sarakaani, two different people. It's called Sarakaani Sutta, there are two of them. Sarakani story is in the Vinaya but it doesn't specify his status.

Can you please provide a source for that? Thank you

https://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Buddhism/lib/modern/bmc/ch8-6.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html https://suttacentral.net/sn55.25/en/sujato

Ok so Sarakaani took to drink alcohol but he attained stream entry at the moment of death. Even if he made mistakes before, he practiced the dharma at the moment of death and attained steam entry. He only drank alcohol before he became a stream entry. That’s what I got from this sutta.

This is not a question of whether he was Sotapanna anyway. He mustve been  dhammafollower or faithfollower anyway. Question is what is a Buddhist.

My point is he broke the precepts BEFORE he became a Sotapanna. You made it seem like he was a Sotapanna when he broke the precepts. He wasn’t a Sotapanna when he broke the precepts. He only became one at the moment of death.

Well what makes a Sotapanna, do you know? One practicing for realization of 1st fruition is called a sotapanna as well. It depends on how u split ariya types as 8 or as 4 pairs.

He wasn’t someone practicing for realization of fruition when he broke the precepts. Someone who is practicing for realization of fruition is someone who is practicing noble eightfold path. Sila/keeping the precepts is part of the eightfold path.

Lol you are misusing one term to justify the mususe of another. I can't go on to explain what is noble eightfold path to you. 1 hour ago u didnt even know these sutta existed...

I’m not going to continue this discussion because it seems that you misinterpreted the sutta and don’t understand the noble eightfold path and this discussion is not going anywhere. Have a nice day!

So what is a Buddhist and what makes a person a Buddhist?
This is a question that can have various answers depending on how one might define what a "Buddhist" is or what makes one a "Buddhist" in the first place. To avoid that altogether, let's forget about the word "Buddhist" for now as it did not exist at the time of the Buddha and let us look to the Tipitaka...

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of
compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened
One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and
those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those
with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those
hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world. Just
as in a pond of blue or red or white lotuses, some lotuses — born and
growing in the water — might flourish while immersed in the water,
without rising up from the water; some might stand at an even level
with the water; while some might rise up from the water and stand
without being smeared by the water — so too, surveying the world with
the eye of an Awakened One, the Blessed One saw beings with little
dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and
those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those
easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger
in the other world.
Having seen this, he answered Brahma Sahampati in verse:
Open are the doors to the Deathless   to those with ears. Let them show
their conviction. Perceiving trouble, O Brahma, I did not tell people
the refined,  sublime Dhamma.
Then Brahma Sahampati, thinking, "The Blessed One has given his
consent to teach the Dhamma," bowed down to the Blessed One and,
circling him on the right, disappeared right there.
SN 6.1

We see here that the Buddha saw that people could understand the Dhamma, regardless of if it would be easier or harder for them to do so. In seeing this, he decided to teach it (obviously). Let's focus on the last verse. He is essentially saying that people can attain Nibbana as he, but only to "those with ears," meaning only those who correctly hear the path can attain Nibbana. If the path was incorrectly heard, one could stray from it and thus never reach the Further Shore.
Therefore, people can hear (and subsequently follow) the path incorrectly, but will never be able to attain the goal as a result and people can hear (and subsequently follow) the path correctly, but will attain the goal as a result. Fast forward to when the word "Buddhist" was developed and you just replace the word "people" in the previous sentence with "a Buddhist."
Thus, a Buddhist and what makes a person a Buddhist is if they are following the Dhamma. Now if the Dhamma they hear (and subsequently follow) is correct or incorrect, that is another story, but in short, one can come to know if it is correct by direct experience to verify it (per the Kalama Sutta).
In my opinion, one should not worry as to what a Buddhist is or what makes a person a Buddhist, it all depends on if they are following the Dhamma, not what they are identifying as. What one should worry about is if the Dhamma they hear is correct and will lead them to reach the Further Shore (which they can come to know through their experience).
So was Devadatta a Buddhist?
Devadatta heard (and subsequently followed) the Dhamma correctly as the Buddha himself expounded it to him in the first place (as far as I understand). The problem is that he took what he heard and distorted it. When he did that, he was not following the Dhamma, he was following his own views.
In that sense, he was following the Dhamma until he swayed from that path and onto his own distorted one, making him a Buddhist at one point and not one at another point.
If he was a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can believe & practice incorrectly; are all humans Buddhists?
Devadatta was a Buddhist until he stopped following the Dhamma for his own distorted views. One would not be a Buddhist if one is not practicing the Dhamma that the Buddha expounded. All humans are not Buddhists because all humans do not follow the Dhamma, only a percentage of them do. Now whether or not the Dhamma one follows is correct or incorrect, that is another story, but (again) in short, one can come to know if it is correct by direct experience to verify it.
If he wasn't a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can't belive wrong things & practice incorrectly; then why do you call ie Mahayana and Theravada followers Buddhists when seeing that they believe different things and pracrice differently?
Refer to my answer in the previous question.

I hope all of this helps. May you be well.


text:
Is it bad karma if you are waiting for someone to die?
I was just wondering if it’s bad karma if you were just waiting for someone to die? For example, let’s say you asked your parents for permission to become a monk but they declined so you decided to wait until they leave this world before ordaining. Is it bad karma if you do this?

Maybe you can elaborate on why you think this is even a question. Why is it that you think it a possibility that waiting for someone to die might entail accruing bad karma?

It's quite respectable that you have decided to wait for them to die so that you can follow dhamma. Some people wait for others to die so that they can accrue financial gains. I don't understand your culture, but here in the UK, when we reach 16 we can choose to do what we like regardless of what our parents think. If you're an adult I struggle to see how your parents can stop you or what motivations they might have for keeping you at home.

NO. Human die from time to time whether you wait or not.

@NeuroMax It may be a rule of the Sangha that you need your parents' permission (regardless of how old you are).

@ChrisW - yes, my comment doesn't cover all scenarios.

I was just wondering if it’s bad karma if you were just waiting for someone to die?

"Whatever, monks, a teacher ought to do out of compassion, for the
profit of his disciples, that I have done, having compassion for you.
"Here monks, are the roots of trees! Here are lonely places! Meditate
monks. Do not be slothful, have no subsequent regrets. Thus we charge
you."
SN 35.145

If you do not have any unwholesome intentions (greed, hatred, or delusion) tied up in doing so, no unwholesome kamma should fruit. Despite that, in many other ways unwholesome kamma will fruit (unless you are enlightened) and so instead of spending your time waiting, meditate! :)
For example, let’s say you asked your parents for permission to become a monk but they declined so you decided to wait until they leave this world before ordaining. Is it bad karma if you do this?

"Do you have your parents' permission, Ratthapala, to go forth from
the household life into homelessness?"
"No, lord, I haven't."
"Ratthapala, Tathagatas do not give the going-forth to anyone who
doesn't have his parents' permission."
"Lord, I will do what needs to be done so that my parents will give
their permission for me to go forth from the household life into
homelessness."
MN 82

It is by tradition and respect that a lay person get their parents permission to ordain. I would suggest that you ask them in a very serious manner and list solid reasons for why you wish to ordain (and even show them your practice so they can understand your point of view better) and be persistent (some people take years convincing their parents!). I would recommend you read the entire sutta quoted above (you can find it by clicking here). Refer to my answer in the previous question for if such an action will produce unwholesome kamma.

It is bad karma wishing someone to die.

AN2.13:1.6: ‘Bad conduct of body, speech, or mind has a bad, painful result in both this life and the next.’

Also see MN81, where Ghaṭīkāra does not go forth because he is taking care of his parents:

MN81:11.3: ‘Don’t you know, dear Jotipāla, that I look after my blind old parents?’


text:
Are monastics allowed to wear lay disciple's clothing?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa (x3)
In regards to the spreading of buddhist monasteries in the west within climates being rather different than that in Asia, I've seen pictures of monks wearing jackets, beanies and shoes considering how the weather may be quite cold/wet (in the UK for instance). Yet, isn't an offence in the vinaya for monastics to be wearing what could be considered a lay disciple's clothing ?

"But cold, lord, is the winter night. The 'Between-the-Eights'[1] is a
time of snowfall. Hard is the ground trampled by cattle hooves. Thin
is the spread of leaves. Sparse are the leaves in the trees. Thin are
your ochre robes. And cold blows the Verambha wind. Yet still the
Blessed One says, 'Yes, young man. I have slept in ease. Of those in
the world who sleep in ease, I am one.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.034.than.html
I'd gladly learn more regarding these rules from those wishing and willing to share,
May you be well.

There's some discussion of that here.

Some answers quote references, which point out that the Buddha allowed footwear in the wilderness and take that as permission to adapt to the terrain.

One says that some monks simply don't go outside at all.

One says that the strict interpretation of the Vinaya can't easily be adapted to a hostile climate.

One says that monks wear warm layers underneath and monks robes as the outer later.

I too have seen photos of a monk wearing snowshoes, and of monks wearing winter coats.
If for example you search for the word "footwear" in this

Modernization? The Great Standards
More than two and a half thousand years have passed since the Vinaya rules were originally set down by the Buddha, and many things have markedly changed since then. Should the rules be modernized and brought up to date? How can this be done?
Already during His lifetime, the Buddha made special allowances for different regions (or desa) outside the 'Middle Country' of North India — where He lived and taught. These dealt with both the workings of the Community — for example, a smaller quorum for ordination is allowed in distant parts where there are fewer monks — and practical measures, such as special dispensation for footwear and bathing. So there is a precedent for adapting to conditions, but this does not mean the abolishing of any rules.
The Lord Buddha also left us a set of principles that can still be used as a standard to judge new circumstances. These are known as 'The Great Standards.' Properly used they should protect against a wholesale dilution of the Rule.

The next section warns against blaming others, by the way.
And ...

There is always an exception in the Sekhiya Training Rules for "one who is ill" so that a bhikkhu may, for example, cover his head when the weather is unbearably cold or the sun dangerously hot. The same applies to footwear, which normally should not be worn in inhabited areas.

... with this footnote ...

The Buddha did make a special allowance about footwear for 'outlying border regions.' In some western countries going barefooted would not be socially acceptable and might even be against the local bye-laws. The Great Standards should be used to decide what is suitable.

Thank you for your answer ChrisW.


text:
The Various Theravada Traditions

What are the various specific traditions in Theravada Buddhism?
If you could please describe, compare, and contrast each of them
that would be greatly appreciated.

May you be well.

People believe that something is true, that it is not true, or that it maybe is and maybe isn't true.
There are major factions like this.
These are split as to which texts they assume to be true and worth studying.
To understand the various sections of thravada one has to look into how commentary & culture has been developing since the beginning and how it shaped the current traditions, teachers, translations & the translators.
There has been an tremendous change in how available the texts have become in the last 100 years, beginning with translations & more recently the internet, it is unprecedented.
The teachers who shaped what is now the monastic Sangha like Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw, Ven. Ajahn Chah and many others are now either dead or soon dead.
Therefore the Sangha is rather slowly evolving new methods & understanding.
Many people are now interested in reading the Sutta more so than listening to a particular teacher or a commentator, people have access to the original texts and want to do their own analysis.
This is also rather unprecedented because historically only a few commentators have had access to texts and people had to get information 2nd hand from a teacher.
Ie nowadays the factions are divided as to:

Burmese Ven. Mahasi & Non-Mahasi
Thai as those who believe that maybe Buddha lives in Nibbana those who don't.
Thai who draw from Mahasi
In Sri Lanka, those who believe that Ven. Nanavira was Ariya and those who don't.
In Sri Lanka, those who draw from Mahasi and those who don't.

Some people analyze controversy by controversy and don't fit well into these broad classifications, ie those who accept some commentary but not all of it. I think this will be the norm in the future.
In regards to Mahasi, he follows commentary, seemingly all of it and then some. It is basically a mainline commentary based tradition and Mahasi Sayadaw produced a lot of commentary work himself.
Other than this it seems like the small monasteries require more conformity and a lot of the monastic division based on vinaya regulation as much as doctrinal differences.
As to Yuttadhammo, he mostly follows Mahasi as he was trained but i don't think he subscribes to everything.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, various Burmese monks (such Ledi Sayadaw, Webu Sayadaw. Mahasi Sayadaw, etc) and disciple laypersons (such as Sayagyi U Ba Khin, S. N. Goenka, Anagarika Munindra, etc) developed &/or taught various idiosyncratic meditation techniques, which the Thai monk Buddhadasa described as follows:

Organized systems of insight training, which were not taught by the
Buddha but were developed by later teachers. This kind of practice is
suitable for people at a fairly undeveloped stage, who still cannot
perceive the unsatisfactoriness of worldly existence with their own
eyes, naturally.
Handbook For Mankind

However, the above Burmese idiosyncratic meditation techniques appear to not delineate specific traditions within Theravada Buddhism because they probably all share the same doctrinal base in respect to the core Buddhist teaching of Dependent Origination/Four Noble Truths.
It appears there are two main and two minor traditions within Theravada Buddhism:

Mahavihara Buddhism, based in the doctrines of the commentator Buddhaghosa, which teach that the Buddha's core doctrine of Dependent Origination should be understood as three-lifetimes. This is the 'orthodox mainstream Theravada' of Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand and those who embrace the ideas of "rebirth" and past & future lives.

Here & now Buddhism, taught by Thailand's Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, which reintroduced here-&-now Dependent Origination as the Buddha taught, which found its way into the Ajahn Chah tradition and its numerous Western monasteries; although not followed by all monks in this tradition. The influence of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa should not be underestimated, as it also pervades many Western lay Buddhist schools.

Solipsism Buddhism, followed by a small group of Western monks and laypeople who follow the doctrines of Sri Lankan monks such as Nanavira and Katukurunde Nyanananda who tried to teach contrary to orthodox Mahavihara Theravada but never quite grasped what the Buddha taught about Dependent Origination, despite their admirable attempts. These Solipsist Buddhists emphasise nama-rupa as the Hindu 'name-form' or 'naming-forms' and hold ideas that 'concepts' create 'reality'; similar to Mahayana ideologies of 'conceptualisation' and 'non-conceptualisation'.

Very recent evangelical traditions, such as Dhammakaya in Thailand, which are said to teach about a "True Self" and claim to have roots in Tantric Theravada.

In summary, the above is my personal impression of the current Theravada traditions.


text:
Should there be a balance between sinful acts and virtuous acts in life?
From Buddhist perspective, should a balance be maintained between sinful acts and merits by a virtuous person?
if a virtuous person meditates for quite a number of hours during a day, and accumulates merits in this process that means does not maintain balance with sinful acts, isn't it necessary to restore balance with sins?

In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha warns against performing seemingly virtuous duties as a means to gain enlightenment. This does not mean that those duties should not be executed, but that their motivations may lie in further becomings or ego-driven actions serving only to give impetus to the cycle of samsara. Perhaps user37920 could have put a little more thought into their wording.

The question as asked doesn't quite fit into any Buddhist sect, tradition, or school that I'm aware of, so all I can do here is suggest what a Buddhist would say about the idea that lies behind it. If the author clarifies precisely where this idea comes from, I might be able to say more; we'll see if that information gets edited in.
In general, this is a 'dharma' question: one that asks about right practice within the Buddhist milieu. Buddhists themselves don't normally talk about 'sinful' acts (though I believe that may be part fo the language of certain sects). For Buddhists, there are acts that are based in ignorance — driven by cravings and desires that arise from a misunderstanding of the world — and then there is dharmic practice, which seeks to erase that ignorance. There is a virtue of a sort in following dharma, but it's not virtue in the evaluative sense of 'acts of goodness'. It's simply clarity.
The question lays out a dualistic worldview in which someone might be overly virtuous: doing too many good things and accumulating too many merits, and thus developing a need to compensate for the excess of 'good' by doing something 'bad'. But for a Buddhist that would merely be a different kind of attachment, a different kind of ignorance. Such a someone has lost themselves in attachment to their own self-image, convincing themselves of their own superior virtue. And the worry that they must compensate for that (perceived) excessive goodness is that ignorance coming to fruition.
Note the convoluted logic: "I am so virtuous that I fear I might become un-virtuous, so I must do something un-virtuous in order to maintain my state of virtue..." Note how the logic disappears if we release the idea that 'virtue' is something one must cling to. Smoke and mirrors...

What do you mean by 'the universe balances things for us'? Are you referring to an intelligence?

@NeuroMax: No. I'm referring to karma, the recurrent nature of things. Put in more colloquial terms, we are not separate from our shadows. If we spread our arms to the light then darkness falls behind us; unless we become transparent, that's unavoidable. The only reason one might believe they have to make darkness is if they are completely ignorant of the shadows they already cast in the world. But that kind of ignorance fades with practice.

@NeuroMax: Really, as I see this question the concern is egotism: that one might become so enthralled by one's own sense of perfect virtue that one must consciously commit errors to ward off that pride. But honestly, that line of thought strikes me as perverse and convoluted.

Yes, I agree. Thank you for clearing this up.

i flagged this answer because i cannot discern anything buddhist about it.

@TedW Am speaking as moderator now. Indeed it's hard to relate this answer with a teaching of a school of Buddhism... Do you want to try and draw more obvious connections, to keep this from attracting critical comments?

@AndreiVolkov: I don't mind the critical comments, if that's what come. I flagged Dhammadatu's comment as unnecessary because I thought it was (at best) a note informing me of his actions, and (at worst) a continuation of his often-expressed displeasure with my posts. If you think the comment is useful to others, please leave it; I can't help but see as an expression of bad blood. As to the other point...

@AndreiVolkov: I'll sit down and review what I wrote. The question was oddly-framed to begin with — as D pointed out, it's not really reflective of any school of Buddhism I'm aware of — and so I wrote my answer tailored to the worldview of the question. It's an answer with Buddhist inclinations more than a properly Buddhist answer, so yeah... But still, saying there's 'nothing buddhist about it' is a bit extreme. At any rate, if I can't figure out any effective changes I'll let you know tomorrow, and you can take whatever action you think is necessary.

The "universe balances things for us" sounds New Age rather than Buddhist. It has nothing to do with Buddhism. An altogether wrong answer should be voted down.

Yes I think you framed the answer to the premise of the question, "Assuming that the universe needs balancing, this is where you were mistaken etc." So it might be a good/effective answer because it speaks the language of the person asking the question (maybe "speaks to their condition"). But it also reminds me of pat explanations of Buddhism I read from modern authors before I found access to scriptures on this site -- a bit New Age. I like to use a question as an opportunity to offer access to a relevant bit of Buddhist doctrine, I usually try to include at least one reference in an answer.

This site is for questions (and answers) about "Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice". So as well as "teaching" (including scriptural references), descriptions of Buddhist "practice" are on-topic. I think the second paragraph of the answer was a not-untrue description of Buddhist practice, and possibly better (or more recognisably "Buddhist") than the first paragraph. But the last sentence is paraphrasing Voltaire, perhaps you could find a more obviously Buddhist source to quote on that kind of subject.

@ChrisW: As I've said before, the wheel is turning. We shouldn't be surprised that Western cultural referents are working their way into the Buddhist conversation, and I'm personally more interested in what works than in what's authorized. But I take your point...

@ruben2020: ...and the han struck in zen temples sounds like a piece of wood. One must look beyond the 'sound' of things to get the meaning.

I revised the answer; first draft anyway. I may take a look at it again later.

@ChrisW and other mods: I don't know if user37920 is still around and tracking this. However, since I did a significant revision I'd suggest — if it's possible — that my answer be removed as the 'accepted' answer. If user37920 wants to re-select it (or chimes in beforehand that this is still the preferred answer), that's fine. But the answer as it stands now it too different from the answer that I originally wrote to just leave things as they are.

user37920 was last seen on this site (by the software) 9 hours ago, i.e. 2 hours after your most recent edit. I'm not supposed to be able to change which answer is accepted -- thank you for your edit (clarification), and don't worry about it.

No. Lord Buddha always encourages and praises those who strives aiming to eliminate all traces of unvirtuous action from their conduct and bring to consummation the virtuous actions.

“And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk
generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts
his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful
qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire,
endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the
sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
(iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds &
exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities
that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire, endeavors,
activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the
maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, &
culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. This, monks, is
called right effort. (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN45_8.html)

“There is the case where a monk might say, ‘Although goodwill has been
developed, pursued, handed the reins, taken as a basis, steadied,
consolidated, and well-undertaken by me as my awareness-release, still
ill will keeps overpowering my mind.’ He should be told, ‘Don’t say
that. You shouldn’t speak in that way. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed
One, for it’s not right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the
Blessed One wouldn’t say that. It’s impossible, there is no way
that—when goodwill has been developed, pursued, handed the reins,
taken as a basis, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as an
awareness-release—ill will would still keep overpowering the mind.
That possibility doesn’t exist, for this is the escape from ill will:
goodwill as an awareness-release.’ (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN6_13.html)

“Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb,
with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered
even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train
yourselves: ‘Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil
words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of goodwill, and with
no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness
imbued with goodwill and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading
the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with
goodwill—abundant, enlarged, immeasurable, free from hostility, free
from ill will.’ That’s how you should train yourselves. (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN21.html)

In Vajrayana school as presented by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche there's a prominent line of teaching about so called "spiritual materialism".
SM is when we use spirituality as a way to accumulate the imaginary dharmic wealth and use it to pump up one's ego. SM is not as much about what you do on the outside as it is about your hidden attitude and motives.
The thing with ego, its attitudes and motives are always well masqueraded. Ego is a master of disguise, it has endless capacity for self-rationalization. Even though its real motives are always selfish, it will infinitely pretend to everyone and to itself that it acts entirely in the interests of the common good and other highest ideals.
Naturally, stalking the ego's, exposing its tricks, leaving it without nutrition, and ultimately making it starve to death is a most important practice in Vajrayana. The student and teacher employ a wide variety of techniques to accomplish this extremely difficult but important aspect of Buddhist training.
On the student's end, one technique used to knock the ground from under the ego's feet ( does ego have feet?) - is to deliberately perform whatever acts the ego finds shameful -- the opposite of its normal food. This includes performing what may look like the sinful acts. The difference between these balancing actions and the regular unskillful acts is huge, while the regular misdeeds are done under the influence of passion, aggression, or confusion - these special skillful downfalls are done with the cool head and clear mind, aiming at breaking the ego's pretense of decency and consistency.
How is this done in practice? Specific acts are entirely up to the student to improvise. They range from something as mild as quietly swearing(cursing) about someone or something in the privacy of one's room, to breaking one or more of the five precepts in a highly public and visible way. I heard stories of lineage teachers going as far as to order the student to go steal something from a shop or even to (!) shoot a deer. Needless to say, picking an appropriate ego-cidal act requires great sensitivity and a mature sense of judgment on the teacher's and student's part. This is one of the reasons that the real Vajrayana is almost always a secret teaching presented only to the most advanced and capable of the students.
In the long term the practice gets more and more refined, until even an overly strong balancing act may be seen as ego's attempt to pass e.g. for an advanced Vajrayana practitioner, something that now has to be balanced out by its opposite and so on until the entire structure of balancing and counterbalancing acts collapses along with the ego itself.
This death of ego is the greatest disappointment a human can encounter in their life. The rock bottom thus hit serves as an unshakable foundation for the ultimate kindness, sincerity, courage, sanity, sobriety, and authenticity known as the Buddhist Enlightenment.

I think that Buddhism might see "virtuous" as "absence of sin" -- certainly monks' lives, for example, seem to me to emphasise avoiding various forms of harmful or potentially harmful behaviour.
And it isn't necessary to balance not-doing-harm with doing-harm. A reason for not doing harm (or for behaving virtuously, for being kind) is to have no remorse:

Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward.

Trying to counter-balance that with harmful behaviour is missing the point.
It may be true that people are warned not to imagine (and not to aspire to) remaining in a permanent heaven. But what's meant to counter-balance that, to be an antidote, isn't being evil -- it's being (or becoming, or remaining) aware of the characteristics of existence -- e.g. anicca and anatta for non-grasping.
I think that's the Buddhist doctrine, and the kind of reason why jhana isn't the ultimate goal (nibbana is).
The limited extent to which the statement is true might be to do with conceit -- i.e. thinking, "I am a good person! Better than that other person!", might be some kind of hindrance. Perhaps a teacher might encourage someone not to grasp that kind of self-image;  but doing that "by doing evil" seems to me quite possibly a mistaken way, and not a skilful way, to do that.

Both are fire, the goal is to abandon both good and evil. Below is a quote from Theory and Reality by Luang Pu Chah

So the Buddha examined the causes and conditions underlying existence
and rebirth. As long as he had not yet fully penetrated the matter and
understood the truth, he continued to probe deeper and deeper with a
peaceful mind, reflecting on how all things, peaceful or not, come
into existence. His investigation forged ahead until it was clear to
him that everything that comes into existence is like a lump of
red-hot iron.
The five categories of a being's experience (khandhas) are all a lump of red-hot iron. When a lump of iron is glowing red-hot, is
there anywhere it can be touched without getting burnt? Is there
anywhere at all that is cool? Try touching it on the top, the sides,
or underneath. Is there a single spot that can be found that's cool?
Impossible. This searing lump of iron is entirely red-hot. We can't
even attach to serenity.
If we identify with that peace, assuming that there is someone who is
calm and serene, this reinforces the sense that there is an
independent self or soul. This sense of self is part of conventional
reality. Thinking, "I'm peaceful", "I'm agitated", "I'm good", "I'm
bad", "I'm happy", or "I'm unhappy", we are caught in more existence
and birth. It's more suffering. If our happiness vanishes, then we're
unhappy instead. When our sorrow vanishes, then we're happy again.
Caught in this endless cycle, we revolve repeatedly through heaven and
hell.

This sounds most like Nichiren Buddhism, which, being a pure land school, was able to acknowledge wrong doing and bad conduct by people that genuinely wanted enlightenment.
Of course, certain sutras and traditions like zen talk about breaking the precepts and an absence of goodness. And the tantric tradition welcomes sex. But suggesting we balance good with bad karma, is as much a misunderstanding as saying that zen encourages amoral behaviour.
I'm not saying it's just it's just rhetoric, but Chinese Buddhism built on top of early Buddhism (see different bodhidharma) -- and didn't just abandon it --  -- and early Buddhism didn't encourage sinful acts.

I hope I clarified what you were saying in the last paragraph.

Your answers are very helpful but it will take time to go through your answers. seven answers are too much for a person to understand in a few days. Thanks. user-37920

sorry, i'll stop @user37920 thanks


text:
What does it mean to be upright?
In karaniya metta sutta,

He who is skilled in (working out his own) well being, and who wishes to attain that state of Calm (Nibbana) should act thus: he should be dexterous, upright, exceedingly upright, obedient, gentle, and humble.

What does it mean to be upright?

That's one of several translations of this

Karaṇīyamatthakusalena,
Yanta santaṃ padaṃ abhisamecca;
Sakko ujū ca suhujū ca,
Sūvaco cassa mudu anatimānī.

They all translate it with the same word, "upright".
The Pali word are ujū (straight), sakko (able/capable), and su- (good).
Here is a dictionary definition: https://suttacentral.net/define/uju
The dictionary has cross-references to other suttas where it's used. Curiously the first of these is DN.iii.150 i.e. DN 30 where it seems to be used literally/physically -- e.g. a straight, well-formed body -- but there it's also used to describe eyes, behaviour, demeanour:

Mendicants, in some past lives the Realized One was reborn as a human being.
When looking at others he didn’t glare, look askance, or avert his eyes. Being straightforward, he reached out to others with straightforward intentions, looking at people with kindly eyes.

Nice answer. I think one of the meanings is also "honest", that is not having hidden motives, candid.

What does it mean to be upright?

It means to go to great lenghts to follow Buddhist ethics as taught by the Buddha - at least keeping the 5 precepts if being a layperson.

araṇīyam'atthakusalena
Yaŋ taŋ santaŋ padaŋ abhisamecca:
Sakko ujū ca sūjū ca,
Suvaco cassa mudu anatimānī.

Practicing "respectfully, carefully, duly, thoroughly", very, very... more in Karaṇīya Metta-Sutta
(Upright is something only reached by stream enter, while metta to practice is open for worldlings as well.)


text:
Why is it hard to concentrate on Kusala?
When I try to concentrate when studying, I end up with a wandering mind, but when I'm watching a video, I forget all the other things. Why is it hard to focus on things I really need? Is it some kind of practise? This was a lot easier to do for Lord Buddha, Ven. Arahant Moggollana.
Is focusing on Akusala than Kusala in samsara the problem? Do I have to build up practise of focusing to overcome this?

If we were completely separate from the world, completely independent - then the perfect focus on virtue would be easy.
But we are not separate, not isolated. We are connected with people and events around us. We are part of the web of influences.
These influence create context for our existence. Our desires and decisions come from this context. A lot of time we are carried away by these impulses, despite our best intentions.
The easiest thing we can do to overcome this is to choose which influences we expose ourselves to. Move to kusala city, make kusala friends, watch kusala movies etc. Surround yourself with kusala and it will be easier to focus on it.

Yes, kusala is against the natural instinctual stream of akusala
For example, if you a hetero man, you see a sexy lady and very quickly sensual desire arises immediately, without any thinking about the lady. this is natural instinct
The suttas explain there are seven underlying tendencies in people; the 1st and most powerful is the tendency to sensual lust (kāmarāga)
The suttas explain there are five hindrances to concentration; the 1st and most powerful is the hindrance of sensual desire (kāmacchando)
Watching a video is an example of sensual desire.
You overcome it by thinking deeply about the harm of it. For example, if you do not study, you do not get an education, you get a poor job, you make little money, and no sexy ladies want to marry you because you are poor and just watch videos