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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a very helpful and informative answer.

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

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

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

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

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

@ruben2020 - I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
Do buddhists believe that time travel will ever be possible?
If yes, what would happen if someone would travel back in time to prevent other person's birth?

If a question was closed as off-topic please do not open another one with the same problem.

In general time is held to be the object of thinking.
In the earliest texts, Buddhists hold that there exist these 12 elements;

Eye & Forms
Tongue & Tastes
Ear & Sound
Nose & Aromas
Body & Sensatipns
Intellect/Mind/Consciousness & Ideation

They hold that is not possible to point out anything in the world that would repudiate the 12 and therefore the 12 are defined as the All or Everything in a definitive sense.
Out of these, 6 are thought of as having their respective objects.
The ideas of time and time travel are not repudiating these 12 and are included as the object of ideation.
Furthermore the 12 can be thought of as 5 classes of past, present & future

Form
Consciousness
Feeling
Perception
Synthesis/Formation

Of these 4 are thought of as having an object. Form is thought of as not having an object.
The All can also be the object of thought in a collective sense and a single element, it is then thought of as the conditioned element and is thought to change as it persists rather than arising & ceasing.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Did The Buddha promise to send a Paracelete, or Holy Spirit?
In page 32 of The Pagan Christ, Tom Harper writes:
"The Buddha, when he prepares to depart, promises (like Jesus) to send the Paraclete, "even the spirit of truth which shall lead his followers into all truth.""
I followed the footnote and found the footnote simply adds other information about other claims, but does not refer to the source of the claim. I also googled and didn't find original source material supporting this claim. I think the difficulty is I don't know he exact words to search for. Perhaps a knowledgeable person here would know where this claim comes from.

Re. "exact words", would you like to add a direct quote to this question?

That's just it, I don't know the exact words spoken by the Buddha. That's what I'm trying to find out. If you mean Tom Harpur's words, they are: "The Buddha, when he prepares to depart, promises (like Jesus) to send the Paraclete, "even the spirit of truth which shall lead his followers into all truth.""

I think the short answer might be "no" -- more-or-less as argued in this review of the book:

Oh no! I found some errors in scholarship here. Tom Harpur's "Pagan Christ" is based on the idea that Christianity borrowed beliefs from paganism. Many scholars have argued in favor of this during the Victorian era and even into the early 1900's.
Many thousands of books by scholars later, the idea has been soundly refuted. [etc.]
Buddha "promises to send the Paraclete" (p 32). Buddhism began as a religion without a god, let alone a paraclete.

To post a longer answer I'll try to reference Buddhist scripture and find some parallel in it.
I think of the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (translated here and elsewhere) as narrating what the Buddha said "when he prepares to depart".
The closest approximation I remember to "sending the Paraclete" is this passage:

(The Buddha’s Last Words)
Then the Buddha addressed Venerable Ānanda:
“Now, Ānanda, some of you might think: ‘The teacher’s dispensation has passed. Now we have no Teacher.’ But you should not see it like this. The teaching and training that I have taught and pointed out for you shall be your Teacher after my passing.

So it's "the teaching and the training" -- the dhamma-vinaya, the law and the discipline -- that's to be the teacher. And not new dhamma-vinaya -- to be revealed in the future -- but rather the dhamma-vinaya which the Buddha had already taught.
Apparently the word paraclete means "helper" or "consoler" -- I guess you could argue that (and especially in context) that's analogous to what the Buddha was saying there -- that the dhamma-vinaya would be teacher, and helper, and consoler.
Furthermore I think that according to the Christian doctrine it's the Holy Spirit that allows Man to understand the teaching (of Christ and of the Church). There might be some Buddhist equivalent to that -- e.g. that there is a doctrine and a belief, which can and should be understood, and that doing so is a bit super-mundane. I think that if you read more of DN 16 you'll see the Buddha is saying that he has already taught, and in fact that the monks listening to him had already understood (and not saying he was going to send more in future).

There other other schools of Buddhism, e.g. with another version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra which I won't try to analyse here.
And some of them might appear to be making promises of future aid, see e.g. Maitreya.
If Tom Harper's footnote isn't helpful then perhaps it's impossible to know what reference his claim is based on, if anything.
There is for example a book from 1896 titled The Gospel of Buddha. Its account includes,

And Ānanda, suppressing his tears, said to the Blessed One: "Who shall teach us when thou art gone?"
And the Blessed One replied: "I am not the first Buddha who came upon earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach his religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax, and glorious at the goal, in the spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim."
Ānanda said: "How shall we know him?"
The Blessed One said: "He will be known as Metteyya, which means 'he whose name is kindness.'"

So possibly the author got his statement from a source like that.
I think we're lucky, now a century or so later, that people have continued to translate the primary texts, so to some extent we can have translations that are more accurate or more literal and not just paraphrased to such an extent as before.
There are also modern teachers who give lectures or "dhamma talks" or who write books for a modern audience, but people can read the original scriptures too in translation (there was  also a time when people's couldn't read the Christian Bible in their vernacular).
I think that that some of the early effort to bring Buddhism to the West was made by a group of people or learned society -- Theosophists -- who tried to find and teach what all religions had in common; which I guess might be nice, but some of the people closely involved with that effort decided that was at the expense of altering or misrepresenting specific religions, and so split from the group in order to promote the study of Buddhism itself.

It should be noted that the author of "The Gospel of Buddha" took great liberties in presenting what he believed were the Buddha's teachings. Also worth noting is that the Buddha referenced Hindu gods such as Indra and Brahma, spoke of heavenly abodes, etc., Western attempts to paint the Buddha as free from super-naturalism notwithstanding.

@MathKeepsMeBusy I don't doubt you. Yet it (e.g. the Sermon at Benares) is recognisably similar: not exactly the same text but a close adaptation (like a movie adaptation of a book, that tells more-or-less the same story while rephrasing a lot of the text). To me the most jarring bit in the Sermon at Benares chapter is perhaps at the end: "the kingdom of righteousness" stands out as Christian jargon (though, now that he mentions it, perhaps there is some parallel that justifies the phrase). What do you think are the greatest liberties? And do you know what Carus' source materials were?

I suppose that, in context, one of the "great liberties" you were referring to might be the passage I quoted -- promising a future teacher with a similar doctrine -- which contemporary readers might have understood as being a possible reference to Christ or Christianity?

"Carus did not hesitate to alter the texts when necessary in order, as he put it, to bring Buddhism “up to date.” Indeed, in addition to “modernizing” many of the passages, Carus added six original chapters of his own. Not surprisingly, The Gospel was panned by scholars at the time" tricycle. I found this to be true when searching for original sources for things I had learned from Carus as a child, and unable to find such sources. Not particularly the passage you refer to.

Before his passing away, it is reported the Buddha is to have said:

In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers. But if, Subhadda, the bhikkhus live righteously, the world will not be destitute of arahats.
DN 16
Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha

One of the culminations of the the Noble Eightfold Path is Anapanasati; which is the manifestation of a special breath awareness (when there is right mindfulness) that leads to purification, enlightenment & liberation.
The breath is the spirit. The Bible reports Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit onto his disciples:

Again Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent
Me, so also I am sending you.” When He had said this, He breathed on
them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. John 20.22
Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French, from Latin spiritus ‘breath, spirit’, from spirare ‘breathe’.

Therefore, it appears The Buddha promised to send a Paracelet (comforter) or Holy Spirit to those who practise the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha said:

If a monk should wish: 'May neither my body be fatigued nor my eyes, and may my mind, through lack of clinging, be released from fermentations,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness with in-&-out breathing.
Dipa Sutta

That so-called parallel is really far fetched. I am surprised anyone with a PHD, i.e. Tom Harpur would have drawn such a connection. There's a world of difference between the idea of a mere instruction to breathe in and out, and leaving behind a conscious supernatural spirit-being that will aid the disciples of a religion. As an atheist I wonder what motivates people to draw such connections that are at best, loose and at worst, not real.

How can you claim to know what is "real". Obviously, atheists don't know much about meditation & the profundity of breathing meditation. My answer was incredible and amazing!!!!!!!!!!!   Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

There used to be a publication called "GOSPEL PARALLELS FROM PÂLI TEXTS." An edition can be read here from 1901:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/oc/gppt6.htm
Here is a picture of the linked document:
Notice how the text subtly implies a connection to the Book of Revelations and these passages from Pali texts? This was translated by a certain "Albert J. Edmunds." Also, it was actually rather common way back in the day to see "deva" translated into English as "angel." I believe there are translations by Rhys Davids that do this too. If anything, I think the connection with Jesus/"the Paraclete" comes from those practices stemming from loosely the 1890s when translators used to draw very open parallels between what they were familiar with, the Bible, and what they were unfamiliar with, these new texts coming out of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia.
Incidentally, Mani, the founder of the Manichaean religion, believed that he had a divine syzygy in the form of the Paraclete sent by Jesus. Later on in his career, Mani reinvented himself various times -- sometimes as a Zoroastrian reformer, sometimes as a Buddha. So there actually was a man historically who claimed to be both the Buddha and the Paraclete, oddly enough. Did the Buddha send it? No. Parallels of the Buddha supposedly predicting Jesus or the Holy Spirit are based on, in addition to the old translations that say "angel" etc., mis-reading "Maitreya" as a generic deity of "loving-kindness."

hi Caoimhghin. did u like my answer? thanks

I agree with Calicoder that the parallel is vague if you are unfamiliar with the so-called “person of the Holy Spirit.” If, like Venerable Nhất Hạnh, we believe that participation in “the kingdom of God” was Jesus’s way of naming nibbāna, then when “the spirit” dwells in Christians, that could be taken as a euphemism for nibbāna as a (blissful) object of the mind, i.e. fellowship with God as a blissful mental object. We know that Christians will eventually practice deep solitary meditations, like the contemplations of breath in the Philokalia that lead to the “luminous place” of the mind.

Perhaps they are dhyāna-inducing? Who can say. If not dhyāna, then at least the anāgamya samādhi (called “access concentration” in Theravāda). The problem is that Christianity as currently practiced is entirely predicated upon the saving power of the external father figure. We are not liberated through our own efforts in Christianity. It is always through another. Because of this, because God is a “person who acts,” he acts for the practitioner. This is incoherent impossibility in Buddhism. Perhaps Jesus taught it different, but that’s how things stand now.

Leaving mainstream Christianity, Jesus teaches in the Gospel of Thomas that that which is the kingdom of God is precisely that which is “of your inside and of your outside” at any given moment.
So I agree with some senses of your interpretation and think that it is an insightful and not-irrelevant observation, but also agree that the parallel is loose at best in light of the doctrinal positions of modern mainstream Christianity.

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


text:
Buddhist Therapists?
I'm looking for Buddhist therapists for a friend of mine (who is also a practicing Buddhist). He's been using traditional therapists and it has not worked for him
Is there a list of Buddhist therapists available anywhere online?

For the United States there is a great resource: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/buddhist
For the UK: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/counselling/buddhist
After filtering for location it's possible to add many other filters, for example for types of therapy (CBT, ACT, MBSR, etc)

It's also possible to change the country in the upper right of the page
It seems that in general you first need to filter by area and can then add filters. "Buddhist" is one of the filters which can be found under the "more..." button in the "faith" column

I hope this helps someone!

Generally speaking a health professional such as a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist can not let his or or her buddhisms come into play in their practice.
They can not be expected deviate much from what they are taught in school because that is a quick way to lose the license.


text:
What translation variants exist of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19-20?
The verses in question are from Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā chapter 25 on an examination of nirvana.
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19–20
न संसारस्य निर्वाणात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं
na saṁsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ
न निर्वाणस्य संसारात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं। १९
na nirvāṇasya saṁsārāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ| 19
निर्वाणस्य च या कोटिः।कोटिः। संसरणस्य च
nirvāṇasya ca yā koṭiḥ koṭiḥ saṁsaraṇasya ca
न तयोर् अन्तरं किंचित् सुसूक्ष्मम् अपि विद्यते। २०
na tayor antaraṁ kiñcit susūkśmam api vidyate| 20

There are two mainstream Mulamadhyamakakarikas (hereafter MMK). There might be one in manuscript form recently dicovered that I am unaware of, but there are two that I am aware of, and they are the Sanskrit reconstructed from Venerable Candrakirti's commentary (which might actually be from Tibetan), and the Chinese version with the nested commentary by Venerable Vimalākṣa. The Chinese source text to do with the Sanskrit you provided is:

涅槃與世間無有少分別世間與涅槃亦無少分別涅槃之實際及與世間際如是二際者無毫釐差別
(T1564.35c27)

In the following list, "Skt" means "from Sanskrit," "Ch" means "from Chinese," and "Tb" means "from Tibetan."
INADA (Skt):

Samsara (i.e., the empirical life-death cycle) is nothing essentially
different from nirvana. Nirvana is nothing essentially different from
samsara. The limits (i.e., realm) of nirvana are the limits of
samsara. Between the two, also, there is not the slightest difference
whatsoever.

JONES (Skt):

There is not the slightest difference of cyclical existence from
nirvana. There is not the slightest difference of nirvana from
cyclical existence. The full extent of nirvana is the full extent of
cyclical existence. There is not slightest interval between them.

KALUPAHANA (Skt):

The life-process has no thing that distinguishes it from freedom.
Freedom has no thing that distinguishes it from the life-process.
Whatever is the extremity of freedom and the extremity of the
life-process, between them not even a subtle something is evident.

MCCAGNEY (Skt):

There is no distinction whatever between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. There is
no distinction whatever between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra. The limit of
nirvāṇa is that of saṃsāra. The subtlest difference is not found
between the two.

SPRUNG (Skt):

There is no specifiable difference whatever between nirvāṇa and the
everyday world; there is no specifiable difference whatever between
the everyday world and nirvāṇa. The ontic range of nirvāṇa is the
ontic range of the everyday world. There is not even the subtlest
difference between the two.

STRENG (Skt):

There is nothing whatever which differentiates the existence-in-flux
(samsara) from nirvana; And there is nothing whatever which
differentiates nirvana from existence-in-flux. The extreme limit
(koti) of nirvana is also the extreme limit of existence-in-flux;
There is not the slightest bit of difference between these two.

STCHERBATSKY (Skt):

There is no difference at all Between Nirvana and Samsara. There is no
difference at all Between Samsara and Nirvana. What makes the limit of
Nirvana Is also then the limit of Samsara. Between the two we cannot
find The slightest shade of difference.

ROBINSON (Skt):

Samsara has nothing that distinguishes it from nirvana; nirvana has
nothing that distinguishes it from samsara. The limit of nirvana is
the limit of samsara; there is not even the subtlest something
separating the two.

BOCKING (Ch):

Between nirvana and the world There is not the slightest distinction
Between the world and nirvana There is not the slightest distinction.
The real limit of nirvana And the limits of this world Between these
two limits There is not the least distinction

BATCHELOR (Tb):

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana
does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara. Whatever is the
end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara. There is not even a very
subtle slight distinction between the two.

DOCTOR (Tb):

Cyclic existence is not the slightest bit Different from the
transcendence of suffering Transcendence of suffering is not the
slightest bit Different from cyclic existence. That which is the
condition of transcendence Is the condition of cyclic existence as
well. Between these two there is not The slightest bit of difference.

GARFIELD (Tb):

There is not the slightest difference Between cyclic existence and
nirvana. There is not the slightest difference Between nirvana and
cyclic existence. Whatever is the limit of nirvana, That is the limit
of cyclic existenence. There is not even the slightest difference
between them, Or even the subtlest thing.

GOLDFIELD (Tb):

Samsara is not the slightest bit different from nirvana. Nirvana is
not the slightest bit different from samsara.  The true nature of
nirvana Is the true nature of samsara, And between these two There is
not even the tiniest, subtlest difference.

HAGEN (paraphrase):

Nothing whatever distinguishes samsara from Nirvana. Nothing whatever
distinguishes Nirvana from samsara. Whatever is the limit of Nirvana
is also the limit of samsara. There is not even the subtlest
difference between them.

NISHIJIMA (paraphrase):

Without leaving the process of wandering, it will become leaving
Nirvana. It does never suggest that we have been given up by Nirvana,
Not belonging to Nirvana, is leaving from the wandering. It does never
suggest that we have been given up by Nirvana, What is included by
Nirvana is just Time, And the Time is also belonging to the wandering
life of ups and downs. The two kinds of substances, that is, Time and
the wandering life of ups and downs, Seems to be as if they were
nothing. Then something excellently delicate is recognized very
clearly...

Two of the "translations" that Korin compiles are paraphrases, not translations. All of the above material is from MMK study notes from Venerable Korin available at https://abhidharmakosa.wordpress.com/.
There is one more translation for me to add.
CAOIMHGHIN (Ch)

Between nirvāṇa and the world, there is not the slightest
differentiation. Between the world and nirvāṇa, there is also not the
slightest differentiation.
From the true apex of nirvāṇa to the apex of the world, like this,
there are two apices with not a sliver of difference between them.

If what you want is the "correct interpretation," I would recommend downloading the full file of the study notes and reading the nested commentaries and seeing what you think of them, if you agree, if you disagree, etc.
We can see for instance that it is like Kalupahana is working with a completely different text. He really radically reinterprets the content of the MMK.

Hi Caoimhgin, here is another one for your list... Garfield actually updated his translation for that verse in his translation of, "Ocean of Reasoning: A Great Commentary on Nāgārjuna’s
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
rJe Tsong Khapa" and I have been told directly by him that he considers the latter the authoritative better translation of his. I will give that translation in another answer.

The document https://abhidharmakosa.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/mulamadhyamaka-karika_study.pdf is not easy to find from your link. Can you update the link?

@Caoimhghin Some later additional translations are mentioned at http://www.tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=M%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81 Can you add them?

Extracted from
Ocean of Reasoning: A Great Commentary on Nāgārjuna’s
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
rJe Tsong Khapa
Circa 1407—1408
Translated from Tibetan into English by
Geshe Ngawang Samten
& Jay L. Garfield
2006
25.19 Cyclic existence is not the slightest bit
      Different from nirvana.
      Nirvana is not the slightest bit
      Different from cyclic existence.

25.20 Whatever is the limit of nirvana,
      That is the limit of cyclic existence.
      There is not even the slightest difference between them,
      Or even the subtlest thing.

What about including the Tibetan original in the answer?


text:
Does speed of body movements affect the calmness of mind?
Does speed of body movements affects the mind? Do we have to slow down our actions to have a better sati? It feels it does affects. But are there any sutta about this? How that works?

The ordinary speed of ordinary body movements does not adversely affect the mind. In my experience, the ultra-slow methods of walking meditation do not enhance mindfulness and, in my opinion, hinder mindfulness, because it takes far more unnatural activity of mind to maintain a very slow unnatural walking pace.
The original Buddhist scriptures are silent on the speed of walking meditation, which means walking meditation was most probably done at a natural pace; which is why it is described as "walking back & forth (caṅkama)".
I know from intensive personal practice that natural ordinary body movements are the optimal for mindfulness.
In fact, the what most do not understand is how to practice mindfulness. In higher practise, mindfulness is maintaining the mind is a state of letting go. Therefore, in the state of letting go, body movements are natural rather than contrived and controlling.

In every sati practice, there is an aspect of samatha just as every samatha practice has an aspect of sati.  If you're finding that slowing your bodily movements down is helping your sati, it could be an indication that your mind isn't composed enough for effective sati work.  In cases like this, I'd recommend that you take some time to still your mind using any of the samatha practices outlined by the Buddha, or, at the very least, slowing down your movements as you have been until sati can be maintained at the normal speed of life.  Ideally, the efficacy of your sati shouldn't be determined by where you are nor be dependent on what you are doing.

It's not that fast body movements reduce the calmness of the mind.
Rather, it's the mind that has to be agitated to generate deliberate body movements which are fast.
From Dhammapada 1:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
follows him like his never-departing shadow.


text:
Techniques for sluggish mind and restless mind
The sutta quote below talks about using different awakening factors when the mind is sluggish as opposed to when the mind is restless.
What are the meditation or mindfulness techniques to be used for each case?
Please elaborate and also quote from suttas, if possible.
From SN 46.53:

“... when the mind is sluggish, it’s the wrong time to develop the
awakening factors of tranquility, immersion, and equanimity. Why is
that? Because it’s hard to stimulate a sluggish mind with these
things.
When the mind is sluggish, it’s the right time to develop the
awakening factors of investigation of principles, energy, and rapture.
Why is that? Because it’s easy to stimulate a sluggish mind with these
things.  .....
“... when the mind is restless, it’s the wrong time to develop the
awakening factors of investigation of principles, energy, and rapture.
Why is that? Because it’s hard to settle a restless mind with these
things.
When the mind is restless, it’s the right time to develop the
awakening factors of tranquility, immersion, and equanimity. Why is
that? Because it’s easy to settle a restless mind with these things.

In short when you notice drowsiness don't just sit there developing that theme of anapanasati, metta, the noting of drowsiness and whatnot. See Capala Sutta for examples.
As soon as you notice that the hindrance of drowsiness is present in you then you should rouse yourself as to wake yourself up and give attention to the theme of arousal of energy or joy.
This you can do by contemplating stirring objects, something that makes ypu glad and even doing tiresome work and whatnot. Basically somehow you hype yourself up if you can.
On the other hand if restless then harness the excess energy to stick to a meditation object like it's glued. A calming theme is used here, something like the breath is good if the mind is racing because anapanasati is particularly good at preventing distracting thoughts.
Otherwise one could develop the themes or appreciation or recollection of nice things like one's virtue, the gems or devas. These can be both calming andor gladdening.
The theme you pick depends on your temperament and circumstances, you can use other themes like the asuba or metta as well if you want, anything that keeps you focused all the way into jhanas.
What then happens is that mind quickly gets secluded due to that non-distractedness on account of directing of aroused energy and keeping it focused.
I have studied this extensively and this is only a very brief practical abbreviation of how to train, not analyzing each theme nor each factor.
Here some texts i've read;

Dhamma Vicaya
He, dwelling mindful in the above manner, searches, investigates and reasons out thoroughly that same thing with wisdom. This is called truth investigation-awakening-factor. (2) Therein what is truth investigation-awakening-factor? That which is wisdom, understanding. absence of delusion, truth investigation, right view, truth investigation-awakening-factor, path constituent, included in the path. This is called truth investigation-awakening-factor.
“And how, bhikkhus, is a bhikkhu a triple investigator? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu investigates by way of the elements, by way of the sense bases, and by way of dependent origination. It is in such a way that a bhikkhu is a triple investigator…

Viriya

The energy of his searching, investigating and reasoning out thoroughly that same thing with wisdom, is strenuous, unshrinking. This is called energy-awakening-factor. (3)Therein what is energy-awakening-factor? That which is the arousing of mental energy. right effort, energy-awakening-factor, path constituent, included in the path. This is called energy-awakening-factor.
The mental inception of energy which there is on that occasion, the striving and the onward effort, the exertion and endeavour, the zeal and ardour, the vigour and fortitude, the state of unfaltering effort, the state of sustained desire, the state of unflinching endurance, the solid grip of the burden, energy, energy as faculty and as power, right endeavour—this is the energy that there then is.

Piti

Therein what is rapture-awakening-factor? That which is rapture, gladness, rejoicing, rapture, mirth, merriment, felicity, elation, delight of consciousness, rapture-awakening-factor. This is called rapture-awakening-factor. (4)For him of strenuous energy there arises rapture that is not worldly. This is called rapture-awakening-factor. (4)
The joy which on that occasion is gladness, rejoicing at, rejoicing over, mirth and merriment, felicity, exultation, transport of mind—this is the joy that there then is.

Passadhi

Therein what is calmness-awakening-factor? That which of the aggregate of feeling, of the aggregate of perception, of the aggregate of volitional activities, of the aggregate of consciousness is calmness, serenity, being calm, being serene, state of being serene, calmness-awakening-factor. This is called calmness-awakening-factor. (5)For him of raptureful mind the body (of mental aggregates) becomes calm, also consciousness becomes calm. This is called calmness-awakening-factor.
The serenity, the composure which there is on that occasion, the calming, the tranquillizing, the tranquillity of the aggregates

Samadhi

Therein what is samādhi-awakening-factor? That which is stability of consciousness. right samādhi, samādhi-awakening-factor, path constituent, included in the path. This is called samādhi-awakening-factor. (6)For him of calm body (of mental aggregates) and mental pleasure, consciousness is in samādhi. This is called samādhi-awakening-factor.
The stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is the absence of distraction, balance, imperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and the power of concentration, right concentration—this is same as composure [collectedness/self-collectedness/onepointedness]

Upekkha

Therein what is equanimity-awakening-factor? That which is equanimity, having equanimity, supreme equanimity, state of balance of consciousness, equanimity-awakening-factor. This is called equanimity-awakening-factor. He, having consciousness in samādhi in the above manner, is well balanced. This is called equanimity-awakening-factor.
The mental [condition] neither pleasant nor unpleasant, which, on that occasion, is born of contact with the appropriate element of representative intellection; the sensation, born of contact with thought, which is neither easeful nor painful; the feeling, born of contact with thought, which is neither easeful nor painful—this is the feeling that there then is.
*Here end the Theravadin Abhidhamma & Sutta excerpts.

Also when the mind is sluggish or aroused, the theme you pick depends on why it is aroused, it might be due to remorse, worry, anger, sensual desire or due to giving of attention to the factor of Viriya as you can easily hype yourself up immensely once you get a grip on this.
Therefore one should be mindful of the hindrances at all times.
I won't post on these and picking themes but i have compiled commentary and sutta excerpts here;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qVz1XtntivxPRsxycsrH0_sgILcMbcghdpxoKuxlLYo/edit?usp=drivesdk
I think the least obvious development is that of upekkha factor and there are several ways of going about it.
Ie defining elements brings about a kind of equanimity, as do certain lines of contemplation and entering the 4th rupa jhana brings about a kind of equanimity.
In general equanimity that is good is brought about however you can get it imo.

The two triples of awakening factors are aligned in balance with the extremes of sluggishness and restlessness, which in turn relate to the hindrances.

Dullness and drowsiness are given up by means of active engagements such as investigation of principles, energy and rapture. As an example, AN7.61 provides detailed information on dealing with drowsiness.

AN7.61:2.1: “Are you nodding off, Moggallāna? Are you nodding off?” “Yes, sir.” “So, Moggallāna, don’t focus on or cultivate the perception that you were meditating on when you fell drowsy. It’s possible that you’ll give up drowsiness in this way.

Restlessness and remorse are given up by mindful disengagement. As an example, MN118, declares:

MN118:15.2: Mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated, fulfills the four kinds of mindfulness meditation.

So the question asked is quite subtle and deep--there are many many considerations involved here. For me, the "Aha!" of SN46.53 is the description of the two groups of three awakening factors and how they relate to the hindrances of dullness/drowsiness and restlessness/remorse. Indeed one notices that the seventh, and key factor required to apply the other two is...mindfulness. And mindfulness is key because mindfulness is always required to understand when and where to apply a particular triple of awakening factors.
Being mindful, we can be aware of hindrances. For example, we can apply investigation of principles to understand how the greed of overeating can lead to drowsiness and dullness. Or we can apply immersion after a messy workday to let go of restlessness and remorse. In both cases, mindfulness is required. And in both cases, mindfulness helps us understand what other awakening factors should be addressed.
It's an open-ended question that we all need to answer individually moment by moment, mindful of all the suttas.


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

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

Section 2: Biology

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

Thank you for your time and may you be well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 1: Morality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, the cause for relapse is understandable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
Guidance in practical aspects of buddhism and meditation
I read a course entitled ' Meditation without exertion' which was purportedly based on Tibetan teachings and methods. It discussed methods of developing concentration and imagination leading to Samadhi. Buddhism seems to present a practical method which leads to discipline and non attachment something which is lacking, at least in my experience, in the the western traditions. I'm looking for direction to these methods and ways of applying these methods to myself and my experience. Your guidance and input will be greatly appreciated

There is a good primer on Buddhist training, it is called Sutta Pitaka and it is basically a collection of discourses attributed to the teacher and the foremost disciples.
It's pretty good and i recommend memorizing it.
You won't go wrong by familiarizing yourself directly with the teacher's message before seeking out teachers & methods as it will equip you with the discernment to see which teachings are based on texts known to be true and whose teachings are worthless.

https://suttacentral.net/sn20.7/
... in a future time there will be mendicants who won’t want to listen when discourses spoken by the Realized One—deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness—are being recited. They won’t pay attention or apply their minds to understand them, nor will they think those teachings are worth learning and memorizing.
But when discourses composed by poets—poetry, with fancy words and phrases, composed by outsiders or spoken by disciples—are being recited they will want to listen. They’ll pay attention and apply their minds to understand them, and they’ll think those teachings are worth learning and memorizing. And that is how the discourses spoken by the Realized One—deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness—will disappear. So you should train like this: ‘When discourses spoken by the Realized One—deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness—are being recited we will want to listen. We will pay attention and apply our minds to understand them, and we will think those teachings are worth learning and memorizing.’ That’s how you should train.”

"Meditation without exertion" that I found on the Internet, based on the top Google search result, appears to be about Gnostic meditation and not Buddhist. It may have borrowed some elements of Buddhism. I will not put the link here as that is off-topic.
For Buddhism, the first step is to gain understanding into the basic teachings of Buddhism.
For a classic introduction to the Buddha's teachings, I recommend the book "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. You can find the PDF version here. There is also a very short collection of the suttas at the back of the book.
The ebook "Without and Within" by Ajahn Jayasaro, available in PDF and epub formats, is 127-pages long and is meant to be a collection of questions and answers on Buddhism for beginners.
The second steps are:

Undertaking the five precepts
Taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha
Cultivation of virtues based on Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood

Please read Ven. Bodhi's "Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts" and Ven. Thanissaro's "Refuge: An Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha" and "The Healing Power of the Precepts".
Only after that, you could consider meditation.
For a beginner's guide to Buddhist meditation, I would recommend Ven. Yuttadhammo's free ebook entitled "How to Meditate" and his YouTube playlist.
When you have gotten through this, then you can move to more advanced material on meditation.

Buddhist samadhi development is founded on moral disciple. If you can't or don't maintain the moral discipline, your mind will have samadhi-hindering emotions (such as sensual desire, anger, restlessness, fear, etc) that are produced by immoral actions. Since killing, stealing, sexual activity, talking, taking drugs, etc, require lots of exertion, to not perform these actions is the 1st step of 'meditation without exertion'.
As for "samadhi", the Pali suttas (SN 48.10) teach samadhi is developed by making "letting go" the meditation object. This is the closest thing to real "meditation without exertion", even though a subtle effort is made to constantly "let go" or keep the mind bright, buoyant and non-attached. For example, a renowned Buddhist teacher said:

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely
focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi
isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than
non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted
samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and
sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty
of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and
perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has
correct samadhi.
Heartwood From The Bo Tree

The term "meditation without exertion" obviously is attempt to teach a method different to the Hindu yogic techniques followed by most Buddhists, such as aggressively attempting to watch the breathing or artificially develop insight, such as: Ven. Bodhi's "Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts" and Ven. Thanissaro's "Refuge: An Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha" and "The Healing Power of the Precepts". Ven. Yuttadhammo's free ebook entitled "How to Meditate" and his YouTube playlist.
This said, "exertion" can merely refer to the exertion required to keep the mind free from unskillful emotions. In other words, the exertion need not be anything significantly forceful, as long as it is effective in keeping the mind clear. Therefore, such exertion may simply be applied to not judging an experience or to not grasping an experience.
Even though the Buddha taught to use "exertion", the idea of "meditation without exertion" is close to what the Buddha actually taught about samadhi development because most people do not understand what exertion really is and how to use it.
Compare it to the exertion required to lift a load of bricks and the exertion required to throw away a load of bricks one at a time. Both tasks require exertion however one type of exertion makes the load heavy and the other type of exertion lightens the load.

Thank you! Very helpful! So concentrate on the establishment and maintenance of virtue as a prerequisite of meditation? Can I begin concentration exercises and if so could you please direct me to suitable material and methods?


text:
Why is it profitable to stop the cycle of rebirth?
Why is it profitable to stop the cycle of rebirth if it is not "me" who is reborn? Or maybe to ask differently - to whom it is profitable?

Related: If there is no self what or who is it that gets enlightened?, If there's nobody to get enlightened, why bother?

The Four Noble Truths talk about suffering. That there is suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the way to end suffering permanently.
It's not about the cycle of rebirth.
Please read this answer to understand what suffering is in Buddhism. It's about discontent and unsatisfactoriness.
Also, please read this answer and this answer to understand what rebirth is in Buddhism. It's the rebirth of individuality and not really the rebirth of the individual, since there is no soul or permanent consciousness in Buddhism.

Buddha has described rebirth through a metaphor of a seed, on a karma field, nourished and sustained by cravings. The seed growth and dies, fertilising it's offshoot seed or seeds in the process.
So karma field exists and is seeded. What profit does it do to extinguishing this process for an individual seed? How do we know that another seed will not simply arise?

@Cob The first noble truth talks about suffering. Not your suffering or my suffering. It's simply suffering. As long as suffering is reduced, even eliminated, there's already profit.

Excellent logical question however the question ultimately has no relevance because it merely represents the false ideas that have arisen in Buddhism for the last 2000 years or so. In summary:

The original scriptures refer to two types of teachings: (i) moral/mundane/kamma teachings for worldly people; and (ii) transcendent/supramundane teachings for enlightened people, namely:

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path. MN 117

The moral kamma teachings that refer to various states of being that follow from certain types of kamma (actions) are never impersonal. Such teachings refer to the same "being" the reaps what it sows, such as:

I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' MN 4

The transcendent/supramundane teaching that all things are not-self (anatta) are never found together with the worldly mundane teachings about "kamma".

Its like the teachings found in kindergarten compared to the teachings found at university. You don't find teachings about algebra, calculus and rocket science in kindergarten for the small children.

To conclude and answer your question, when you act in an ordinary worldly way, there is a sense of "self" behind that action. For example, if there was no sense of self (for example, no "I want to have sex"); there would be no performance of ordinary action. Since there is a sense of self behind the action; there is also a related sense of self behind the results of the action (for example, "I hate my girl who left me for another guy & I am now feeling hurt").

Therefore, it is profitable to stop the cycle of "rebirth" ("cycle of getting burned by self-centred actions") because it is profitable to be without the pain & suffering of doing misinformed careless self-absorbed things.

..........................

To the extent that you are reborn at all, to that same extent you are reborn from every moment-to-moment. With this in mind, ask yourself: "Why is it profitable to stop the cycle of rebirth from moment-to-moment if it is not 'me' who is reborn?"
Let's break this down into some piece-wise questions:

Do you accept the premise that you are reborn from moment-to-moment?
If yes, then would it be profitable to stop it? If so, why/how?
If no, then what is reborn from moment-to-moment? Anything? Nothing? Is it "me?"

Maybe think of the above and if you come up with anything let us know! :)

The questioner would most likely be unfamiliar with the concept of moment-to-moment rebirth.

That's true and I thought your answer was excellent. To me the question itself shows confusion or misunderstanding about rebirth. It is hard to answer such questions because the precise knot of confusion is hard to discern. In my experience, putting aside life-to-life rebirth and focusing on moment-to-moment is a very good exercise for somewhat untying most of these knots. Do you think moment-to-moment rebirth an advanced topic? For me, life-to-life is the more advanced.

Since your birth, if you haven't experienced any of these, yes it's not profitable.
Got sick and hospitalised for days
Felt pain both physically and mental
Lost someone loved
Getting older
... Etc.


text:
Can we use computer coding activity as a kasina object?
Anything we do mindfully can cause a meditative experience. I am a software developer and sometimes when I am engrossed I don't feel the 'I', some kind of 'annatta' experience. Reaching somekind of Zen experience. I want to ask can we use this activity of programming computers as a kasina and achieve some jhana state? How do I go about it?  Also, is my understanding of what kasina is correct?

What you are describing is colloquially known as being in the zone. It's a type of refined concentration where spectacular human feats can be achieved. There's a lack of ownership regarding the current task and often the concept of a body disappears. This should make you curious.
It's completely possible for jhana to occur under these circumstances, off the cushion and in the throes of daily life. In my personal understanding, experiencing jhana off the cushion has much more of an impact. In fact, this kind of exploration should be actively encouraged.
For dhamma practice, the object of concentration must not be generating continuity of thought, as with your task of programming code. There is something behind that primary task. This is the whole point: to bring meditative enquiry into the sensuous domain such that we become receptive to evermore subtle forms of awareness: hence, from coarse to fine, until we reach the bare subtleties of our awareness which flickers like a mirage in the desert. Like approaching a mirage in the desert, it vanishes; conditionality ceases. See the Lesser Discourse on Emptiness.
Look furthermore into these events you describe and see if you can replicate them in other settings. It's also important that, through study or teacher interaction, one is able to find a stable environment from where these experiences can be contextualized. See the Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness.

Can you substantiate this answer with texts known to be true? Ie the base of sutta pitaka. Thanks.

@8527 - updated to reflect your requests.

I meant this part: "It's completely possible for jhana to occur under these circumstances". And by these circumstances 'being preoccupied with coding' is what is meant or attaining jhana whilst being preoccupied with work unrelated to the teacher's message in general.

@8527 - in those general circumstances yes, but if you read further "the object of concentration must not be generating continuity of thought"... It only takes seclusion from sensuality, and seclusion from unskillful qualities. Incidentally, you cannot know any sutta to be true until you have direct knowledge of where it points. In this respect, the Buddha's teaching should be viewed as neutral. Likewise for my answer.

No.  Its too active and mutable to be used to attain jhana.  You need an object that is stable, unchanging, and that can essentially be "sat" on.  Any activity that has discursive mental content, gross emotional feelings, or agitation is, pretty much by definition, antithetical to right concentration.  In fact, the simple act of lifting your fingers to type is disruptive to the point where even access concentration will remain out of reach.


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

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

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

Rūparāgo and arūparāgo

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

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

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

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

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

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