text:
Tolerance – Buddhist in Countries with a Non-Buddhist Majority
Each religion has their own values and its – compulsory or recommended – rules. Tolerance begins where the rulings of the religions differ.
To what extent should a Buddhist follow the rules of a country, and where is the limit when Buddhists have to protest or to disobey? Which rights for a Buddhist should be observed by all countries?
I am asking for rights that are needed to grant religious liberty in particular to Buddhists, maybe signed as the absolute minimum (limit when Buddhists have to protest or to disobey) and fair treatment (rights for a Buddhist should be observed by all countries).

This question is too broad. It could be improved by giving examples of what you might have in mind. Some example countries and the laws thereof which you are wondering about. Which buddhist rules are you envisioning and which countries rules? Even if you have no specific country or rules in mind, examples would be very helpful in forming an appropriate answer.

I am sorry not to be able to become very specific because I am a Muslim not knowing much about the highest priorities. I have put the same question on the Islam SE site https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/68069/tolerance-muslim-in-countries-with-a-non-muslim-majority and I would like to get a scope for necessary tolerance of all religions

Ok, well this is a good example and thank you for it! You're asking if there are compulsory or recommended rules that would compel a Buddhist to act in a certain way even if it was in contradiction to the rules of a country of predominantly Islamic faith. This is a good question. Thank you for the update.

One way self-proclaimed Buddhists identify themselves as such is by taking refuge in the Triple Gem of the Dharma, the Buddha, and the Sangha. Usually when a lay follower takes refuge they are advised to take a vow to follow the five precepts:

to refrain from killing
to refrain from stealing
to refrain from lying
to refrain from improper sexual conduct
to refrain from consuming intoxicants

It is important to note that the decision to undertake these five precepts is completely voluntary. Moreover, it is not compulsory to take all five... many Buddhists only undertake some of these precepts while omitting others. Many Buddhists do not take the fifth precept of refraining from consuming intoxicants.
It is also important to note the scope of these precepts and that they too can be voluntarily widened or shortened. For instance, some will only take the first precept as vowing not to kill other human beings. Others will take the precept with all sentient beings in mind; vowing not to kill even an ant or a fly.
Lay followers are generally encouraged to take as many of the precepts and in as wide of scope as they can faithfully undertake. It is always possible to widen the scope or undertake more precepts at a later time.
Further, when one takes refuge in the three jewels, it is advised that one should give up taking ultimate refuge in a creator god or other religion. It is also advised that one should give up associations with people who would actively harm one's refuge by disparaging the Dharma for instance.
This does not mean that one is barred from following the practices of another religion where they are beneficial and non-contradictory!
Rather, it just means that one is advised not to take refuge in the Triple Gem while also believing in the salvation of a creator god. The reason is because these two are not generally compatible and will cause confusion when confronted with the necessary contradictions involved.
So to answer your question, I would say an Islamic country - for instance - should respect these precepts and allow non-majority Buddhists to follow them as well as take refuge in the Triple Gem. I would also say that the Islamic country should not ban the ability of the Buddhists to form Sangha communities and to pass around Dharma literature and actively practice their faith and religion.
The forming of Sangha communities (monks and nuns living in commune or in solitary areas) and the precepts that monks and nuns (voluntarily) undertake involve more proscribed precepts. And it is important to note that Dharma teaching and literature will also necessarily involve pointing out the contradictions between what Buddhists believe and what is implied by a creator god bestowing liberation. This is where I think it most likely that tension could be found between Buddhist rules/precepts/beliefs/practices and the rules of a dominant Islamic country. I do believe it's possible for the two to live in mutual respect and tolerance, but it will involve kind acts and giving the benefit of the doubt and respect for the views of others on both parts.

Among your five precepts, only the first - to refrain from killing - may conflict with legislation when military service is obligatory. Would this precept imply refusion of military service? (side question: is this respected in Buddhist countries?)

It would def. conflict to the extent that you are obliged in military service to kill others. However, I do not believe it would be in conflict with this precept if one were compelled to work as a doctor or nurse to save lives in military conflict for instance. I do not know of any contemporary Buddhist countries that would compel its citizens to kill others and if there were any such countries I would object to them calling themselves Buddhist as they'd be in direct contradiction to the Buddha's teachings.

As in Yeshe Tenley's answer, the first thing that comes to mind for lay Buddhist are the 5 precepts. Perhaps no country would have a problem allowing this. Except that the first precept may conflict with military conscription (and historically some countries or rulers had a problem with that), so some Buddhist might want to be exempt from military conscription. Many countries don't have military conscription any more, and of those which do or did, some countries allow that exemption, not for Buddhists in particular but for "conscientious objectors" and "pacifists" in general.
Buddhist monastics usually need to be supported by lay society, for example via alms rounds. Again a country sometimes has a problem with that -- disapprove of people begging and being untaxable. And again it's tolerated by liberal western democracies, not only for Buddhists but for other religions too -- for example there's provision in the tax laws for people who have made "a vow of perpetual poverty".
There might be problems if a country has blasphemy laws. Buddhist doctrine might not be considered orthodox according to Islam, and vice versa. So far as I know, Islamic "blasphemy" laws (where these exist), apply more strictly to Muslims than to non-Muslims (e.g. the Dhimmi) -- similarly "apostacy". As well as blasphemy, fundamentalists may also take exception to the iconography of other religions (leading to the destruction of the Bamiyan statues, for example). Alternatively many countries guarantee "freedom of religion" as a right, allowing people to choose any religion or none.
Some totalitarian governments have a problem with alternative social or political structures. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think I read for example that Christianity is allowed in China, but only of a form that's permitted by the government or Communist Party -- and not for example Roman Catholicism, to avoid a church that's headed by the Pope in Rome (and may be opposed to local authorities) -- perhaps you see that also, in their treatment of Buddhists and Muslims.
Civil wars and so on also happen because it isn't only religion but ethnicity and so on -- and nationalism. Sometimes it's what I think of as an over-reaction or a wrong reaction, for example:

A (social, religious, ethnic) minority is persecuted or just disadvantaged
There's some incidents of violence (motivated by poverty, revenge, terrorism), by some members of the minority
The reaction is, "[all] the members of minority is violent, therefore we must remove them from the country"

The members of the majority religion might find articles of doctrine which justify that "defence of the faith". It seems to me that's a bit extremist though, and that different religions co-exist peacefully in secular democracies.

We should respect other religions if they think it's right. As you also think ''your's'' is.
There are many good people doing good


text:
What is meant by "divorcing the view and the action" and why is it considered so dangerous?
In Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara, there is a debate with the Charvakas (ancient materialists) about the existence or non-existence of past and future lives. In the commentary, Rinpoche compares and contrasts the Charvakas tenets with modern day scientists who would deny the conventional existence of past or future lives.
Rinpoche accuses modern scientists with the phrase "divorcing the view and the action" and advises that this is a saying among masters to describe something considered very dangerous:

As Rinpoche implies that this phrase is commonly used by masters to describe something very dangerous I am wondering if there are other examples of masters using this phrase and why it is considered so dangerous. Can anyone find Sutra/Treatise/Commentary/Anecdote of other masters using this phrase?
I'm also wondering if it is appropriate to describe modern Secular Buddhists who also deny the conventional existence of past or future lives as holding the same view as modern scientists and subject to this same phrase? If so, why is this so dangerous and what is meant by "divorcing the view and the action?"
What is the translation of this phrase in Pali, Sanskrit, or Tibetan to the extent that there are examples of masters using this phrase in a similar way in any of these languages?

...we should at least hope for additional evidence, better controlled
experimentation, showing that it is possible to recover memories that
are not encoded in neural tissue, that it is possible to sustain
consciousness in organisms that lack nervous systems, that it is
possible for mental causation to cross time and space and alter
physical substrates.
Negative experiments along these lines are legion, though they rarely
find their way to the front page of your local newspaper, since nobody
has any reason to promote them. One can find mention of them in places
like Skeptical Inquirer magazine, or outlined at websites like the
Skeptic’s Dictionary or Quackwatch.
It is for reasons such as these that any contemporary, scientifically
informed Buddhist practice should reject belief in rebirth and its
associated kammic causation.

Quoted above is from the link you attached with regards to Secular Buddhists. In short, the set of arguments is... because we can't experimentally recover memories that are not encoded in neural tissue, etc.. it follows that rebirth is false. That right there is a pure materialist view, similar to the Charvakas idea which the Rinpoche said has no place in Dharma.
Following the same analogy, the Secular Buddhist will not find a different neural tissue memory imprint representing intention between the monk approaching a certain nun and the lover.
So the danger in the materialistic view is that the modifiability of Kamma (intention) is denied and without that, there is no liberation from the samsaric cycle of suffering.
Quoted below is from Kamma and its Fruit by Nyanaponika TheraNyanaponika.
However, a scientist's view is not finalized, a scientist doesn't start with a premise that everything is material or that the equipment he/she has can recover everything knowable thus will not reject the unproved rebirth idea or any unproven idea for that matter. That is why I think Rinpoche says a scientist could be a vessel for the Dharma.

Most writings on the doctrine of kamma emphasize the strict lawfulness
governing kammic action, ensuring a close correspondence between our
deeds and their fruits. While this emphasis is perfectly in place,
there is another side to the working of kamma — a side rarely noted,
but highly important. This is the modifiability of kamma, the fact
that the lawfulness which governs kamma does not operate with
mechanical rigidity but allows for a considerably wide range of
modifications in the ripening of the fruit.
If kammic action were always to bear fruits of invariably the same
magnitude, and if modification or annulment of kamma-result were
excluded, liberation from the samsaric cycle of suffering would be
impossible; for an inexhaustible past would ever throw up new
obstructive results of unwholesome kamma. Hence the Buddha said:
"If one says that in whatever way a person performs a kammic action,
in that very same way he will experience the result — in that case
there will be no (possibility for a) religious life and no opportunity
would appear for the complete ending of suffering.
"But if one says that a person who performs a kammic action (with a
result) that is variably experienceable, will reap its results
accordingly — in that case there will be (a possibility for) a
religious life and an opportunity for making a complete end of
suffering."
— AN 3.110

Thank you for the answer. I'm specifically looking for an answer for the meaning and usage of the phrase "divorcing the view and the action" and Rinpoche's mentioning that this seems a common or known diagnosis for a view that is deemed very dangerous.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does Buddhism and Jainism contrast with each other on way of attaining enlightenment?
Jainism is a philosophy which is similar to Buddhism.
So how do Buddhist teachings and the Jains teachings contrast with each other on way of attaining enlightenment ?

Moderators, is this on topic?

@AndreiVolkov yes, because it is about Buddhism

I suspect this may get negative towards another religion. Putting on hold until I hear from other moderators.

@AndreiVolkov who will this get negative towards other religions, in reality Buddhist scholar have critized jainism. So what's wrong is asking about it. I am not mocking jainism but I want to know what are the arguments  Buddhist scholars make against jain philosophy as both of them are nastika philosophy (I. E reject vedas) but believe in reincarnation, karma, Moksha( liberation from the cycle of life and death) and ahimsa(non volince)

@Andrei Volkov - it's well known that the Buddha had various peaceful and friendly dialogues with the Jains. Personally, I think the question is valid although the OP's use of the term argument may not be the best of choice words.

@NeuroMax what word can I use. Because argument means "a reason or the reasoning given for or against a matter under discussion" so I think my word choices is correct.

Argument in my culture refers to a heated and angry dialogue.

@NeuroMax can you tell what word can I use.

Iv'e edited your question. If you're not happy with it, please change it. ;-)

@NeuroMax thanks for the nice edit. :-)

Another problem with this question is that it is over broad. One can find many resources on the internet that discuss Jainism and Buddhism and compare and contrast. I don't think this forum is the proper place to answer such a broad question. If the OP can narrow it down to specific points, then perhaps that would help.

@YesheTenley what kind of specific point I can make.

If after availing yourself of all the resources out there on the internet about Jainism and Buddhism... after learning about the basics of each and some of the distinguishing features of each... after taking some time to think about those distinguishing features and what they mean... if you then have some question(s) about specific features and how they differ or do not understand some points, then perhaps this forum would be a good place to ask. But as it stands I don't think this forum is a good place for such a broad effort to compare/contrast.

If you want you might even start by typing 'jainism' into the search bar above and see the questions/answers that have already been proffered on Jainism on this site.

@YesheTenley on way of attaining  enlightened

Reopened the question, let's give it a shot?

@AndreiVolkov I think it's ok because we also have other questions on Hinduism/ Brahmanism. And it makes sense, because in the Buddha's time, he or his disciples interacted with followers of Brahmanism and Jainism, and there are historical records of these discussions in the Pali Canon.

Agreed. I was mostly worried about specific wording in the original version of the question.

@AndreiVolkov I think "What some of the main difference between Buddhist doctrine and Jain" needn't be considered overly hostile (i.e. inviting negativity), nor off-topic (i.e. not about Buddhism). However "broad comparisons" were defined as unwelcome in the Moderation policies for Questions -- and this is broad, not about any specific detail -- the main arguments against broad being that "questions which devolve into broad comparison tend to lead to discussion, rather than to finite answers that are expert and balanced".

Anyway I think this question or ones very like it have been asked and answered before -- this could be reopened if it were more specific, asking about some detail which might distinguish it from previous questions.

The typical approach here is to look over the duplicate questions and if you feel they don't answer your question, then update this question being mindful to include specifics. From what I know of the of Buddha and his disciples and how they interacted with the Jains, it's difficult to define those interactions as broad because they were mostly centred around self and middle way teachings - which is something we all struggle with from time to time. That might help you narrow down your question a little. ;-)

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


text:
Can buddhists watch horror films/tv shows?
I am just a little curious as I do not know. Would they be prohibited for buddhists or would they be allowed to watch?

Sure, but if you practice well enough, the horrors of the four apayas stand in stark contrast to any of the horror movies. I could tell you things that would make your teeth itch.

These things are stumbling blocks to jhana & ariya stage attainments.
A bhikkhu is not allowed to watch entertainment.

Marked this answer down because the OP has tagged this about lay buddhism specifically. However, if you want to add vinaya rules your second comment about a bhikku, then please provide links or references. Whether your first statement is about lay buddhism or not it would be good to provide references and/or elaborate on why or how these are considered stumbling blocks.

A bhikkhu is one intent on heightened samadhi, panna & sila. A bhikkhu can be one gone forth yet not ordained, see example of Pukkusati. If the question is posed 'are movies considered helpful & beneficial in Buddhism?' then obviously the answer is no they are not, The Buddha warned against sensuality. Is it bad only for monks? No, it's bad for everyone. Lay people don't have a list of rules and neither did the early bhikkhu sangha, there were no rules  because monks were well-behaved. A set of rules for lay people was never made.

The distinction between lay peoole and monastics as to what is allowable is therefore a rather colloquial later development. Furthermore the Buddha said that the sangha can abandon minor rules and which those are is a moot point.

There is only one set of good & bad for people and there are two modes of training one where bunch of bad things remain technically allowable and another where many bad things are formally restricted by communal regulations which differ between sects.

There are Sutta such as Sigalovada which outline virtuous living for householders but one is obviously allowed not to follow those guidelines. What one considers offense and allowable is a matter of personal or communally imposed regulation but whether something is beneficial or harmful to one's development is a matter of analyzing according to scripture and that truth is universal to all Buddhists because the behavioral regulation should align itself with what is beneficial.

Buddha also said that sensuality is allowable for whom money is allowable. A person in pursuit of heightened virtue, samadhi & wisdom would do good to consider these not allowable as is evident by bhikkhu regulation.

I guess whether it's allowable or not depends on what one means by allowable.

I'm sorry for the down vote.
We aren't here to attain freedom for our selfs, we are here to bring world peace - except in Hinayana wich isn't wrong.
Please let me reframe this.
If you have doubts about what your school is teaching you must ask your guru. I think it would be for best. Guru is guru.
I don't see anything wrong in a horror movie for a person with bodhicitta that feels that her/she should go. But I see that we can also drink alcohol, eat meat if we are offered meat.... karmamudra...

In short, yes, Buddhists are “allowed” to watch horror films.
The more detailed explanation requires an explanation of Buddhist ethics. In Buddhism there are no “rules,” in the same sense as in other religions. In particular, there is no concept of sin, meaning that one does not commit infractions against a code enforced/created by a divinity or institution. Actions carry a moral weight in and of themselves, but only insofar as they result in certain fruits that either hinder or help liberation. There is no punishment for “breaking” the “moral code.” There are only consequences, so one is encouraged to develop wisdom, to be able to tell apart bad decisions and good decisions. Ultimately, one is responsible for one’s own actions, so one does not ask for permission, nor does one offend an institution or supreme being by breaking the precepts, but one does harm other beings and oneself by performing evil deeds.
So, in general, when approaching any situation in life, Buddhists are encouraged, as the Buddha encouraged his own son, Rāhula, to ask themselves, “Will this action result in harm to myself or others?” So in that line, will watching a horror movie result in harm to myself or others? The answer, depending on one’s tastes and whether one considers being afraid as harmful, is that probably not.

No. You can see it as Chod. Chod is a common practice...
I think if you put your mind into benefiting beings in no matter situation even if you don't do it you can also extract life experience and wisdom to help them anyway.
Sometimes if it's to save the world you should do something wrong no?
Just sharing thoughts
======================================================
If you think it's would benefit all beings "Just Do It".

How is this answer related to Buddhism?

Is Mahasiddha Virupa related to Buddhism?
It depends if you are a Ngakpa, a monk, a Dharmapala...

What is Chod? Is that related to Buddhism?

@ruben2020 I think of it as a graveyard meditation but I haven't had it explained. Chöd - Wikipedia

I'm sorry, Chod is now a old common practice in Tibetan Buddhism.
You can know bit more from taramandala.
In other types of buddhism it might not be known or used... I'm just very used to Tibetan buddhism

Buddhism is about cause n effect or karma or consequences of an action
Here is some pro n con
https://www.healthline.com/health/how-do-horror-movies-affect-your-mental-health
If u have kinda insomnia  or just a lay Buddhist, better watch Tom n Jerry


text:
Taking care of the dying
What advice did the Buddha give to laypeople or monastics about taking care of a dying loved one or anyone dying in their deathbed?

Ask for a Lama or Monk near you to bless them. They might have a better rebirth or after life.

related topic: (with answers): What do you do to prepare for death?

First of all, good householder, it's important to take care of yourself, meaning staying within the frames of references.
Second, may good householder gain firm faith into the first Noble truth, and then firm investigate of what else the fear of losing beloved form, sound, smell, taste, touch and giving of thoughts could be.
Once good householder is clear about this first three points it would be good to establish the beloved in Dhamma and faith into the Gems.
If already a follower, or once gained, there are some suttas on how to approach a fellow, either lay or monastic: Advice for sick uninstructed lay people by instructed lay people
In all cases, it any possibility, inviting wise Monks, encourage beloved to make merits and let the Venerable(s) teach the Dhamma for all of you. An hour, a day, 10 days, again and again..
May good householder have the effort to cancel all other useless stuff and spend the whole time in paying gratitude and being generous at one of the right times. Much success toward the Deathless for all of you and your's.

Please read "Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill" by Lily de Silva.
All teachings from the suttas related to this topic are summarized in this essay.
Here's a quote from it.

The Sotapattisamyutta contains a valuable discourse on the question of
counseling the terminally ill (S.v,408). Once Mahanama the Sakyan
inquired from the Buddha how a wise layman should advise another wise
layman who is terminally ill. Here it should be noted that both the
counselor and the patient are wise lay Buddhists. The Buddha delivered
a whole discourse on how this should be done.
First, a wise layman should comfort a wise layman who is terminally
ill with the four assurances: "Be comforted friend, you have
unshakable confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, that the
Buddha is fully enlightened, the Dhamma is well proclaimed, and the
Sangha is well disciplined. You also have cultivated unblemished
virtuous conduct which is conducive to concentration."
Having thus comforted the patient with the four assurances, he should
ask him whether he has any longing for his parents. If he says yes, it
should be pointed out that death will certainly come whether he has
longing for his parents or not. Therefore it is better to give up the
longing.
Then, if he says he gives up his longing for his parents, he should be
asked whether he has longing for his wife and children. With the same
reasoning he should be persuaded to give up that longing too.
Then he should be asked if he has any longing for the pleasures of the
senses. If he says yes, he should be convinced that divine pleasures
are superior to human pleasures, and should be encouraged to aspire
for divine pleasures.
Then he should be gradually led up the scale of divine pleasures and
when he comes to the highest heaven of the sense sphere, his attention
should be diverted to the Brahma-world. If he says he has resolved on
the attainment of the Brahma-world, he should be admonished that even
the Brahma-world is characterized by impermanence and the rebirth
personality.
Therefore it is better to aspire for the cessation of the rebirth
personality. If he can establish his mind on the cessation of the
rebirth personality, then, the Buddha says, there is no difference
between him and the monk who is liberated.


text:
Is rebirth scientifically proven?
I am from a Buddhist family, in which my parents believe in Buddhism a lot (100%).
But after learning tech, science, and IT in the last five years, what I feel is the idea of rebirth is nothing more than an ancient Far Eastern religious belief, which is utterly impossible. For rebirth to be real, there would need to be:

The ability for consciousness or awareness to survive the death of the brain of the person concerned. This is an impossibility, since consciousness is an exceedingly complex function of the electrical and biochemical activity inside a living brain, and as far as we’re currently aware, only in the brain of certain higher mammals. The definition of death is when all electrical and biochemical activity in the brain ceases, and consequently everything which was ever held in that brain, vanishes. It doesn’t ‘go’ anywhere, it simply ceases to exist.

The ability for a person’s consciousness or awareness to exist both extra-corporeally and immaterially. There is no mechanism which allows for such a thing even when related to a living brain, let alone a dead one. For this to happen, several of the fundamental laws of science would need to be violated.

The ability for this extra-corporeal consciousness or awareness not only to survive the death of the brain in which it originated, and then continue in existence in an immaterial form for an undefined period, but then to somehow find its way into the brain of another person who might not even be born yet—we’re well into the realm of pure fantasy or science fiction here!

So what I want to know is: has rebirth been scientifically proven or is it true?

The wrong path is the path that leads to long-term harm and suffering (of which the materialist worldview takes part in). Every and each instance of suffering in the world has the search for sensuality as its root cause. How could the path that leads to overcome the craving for sensuality be wrong?

Is Rebirth Scientifically Proven? -- It is neither proven nor disproven by science.  Science therefore has nothing to say about the matter.

this is an impossibility, since consciousness is an exceedingly complex function of the electrical and biochemical activity inside a living brain -- Is it, though?  Have you identified proof of that?  At least [one person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness#:~:text=Electromagnetic%20field%20theories%20(or%20%22EM,McFadden's%20and%20other%20field%20theories.) has asserted that consciousness resides in electromagnetic waves; under the right conditions, those waves could definitely exist outside of the living brain.

Reincarnation as you describe it, is scientifically unproven. It is also, speaking as a scientist and someone who has studied & researched Buddhism for almost 30 years now, IMHO irrelevant to the central teaching of Buddhism, which is experiential. Buddhism and science agree on many aspects of how the brain and the mind operate. The meditative practice and mental effects of Buddhism can be and have been scientifically quantified.
Many Buddhist schools also do not perceive reincarnation as the definition in your question, but rather as an allegory for the states of mind we go through as individuals every day. One Zen master wrote "we reincarnate ten thousand times every day" - that is, your mental state is not the same right now as when it was 5 seconds ago. This is viewing the realms of Samsara as states of mind: craving, desire, frustration, bliss, instinct, etc.

I find this answer extremely ironic in that you are saying the views above are irrelevant when in fact they are being used to say the path of Buddhist Dharma is wrong. The OP is describing the view of the Charvaka school which was a non-Buddhist ancient materialist school and the logical consequences thereof.

I'm glad it amuses you, but at least it's factual. I don't see any reference to Charvaka in the OP's question, that conclusion seems to be of your own making and not what the OP asked, which is merely whether reincarnation is scientifically proven. Lack of evidence indicates improbability in science - it is not, as you state, a belief.

See the last line of the OP's question where he says the Buddhist path is false. As for lack of evidence you have testimony from the Buddha as well as many others and moreover denying rebirth is incompatible with the doctrine of annata.

And how does that in any way exclusively connect to Charvaka? Also, the OP states an "if" question in his last sentence.

If you look at my answer you'll see quotes of the Charvaka view coming from Sutta. They are in complete accordance with the OP's stated views.

I don't see how this OP has a real question. In the premise to the "question" he states unequivocally that it is "utterly impossible." As for your "lack of evidence indicates improbability" I'd like to understand how you've come up with this idea and why you believe it is a good idea. In ancient India they had a lack of evidence of the connection of electricity to magnetism.

"denying rebirth is incompatible with the doctrine of annata." - And yet many schools do not take rebirth literally and many of those practitioners are historically documented to have gained attainment and their writing expounds that attainment. How do you explain that then?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

What is rebirth?
When most people think of rebirth, they think the permanent consciousness that has existed from childhood will continue into another life. They think consciousness is self. However, the Buddha taught that consciousness is impermanent, constantly changing and is dependently originated.
This is found in MN 38:

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to
him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to
him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you —
'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this
consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"
"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed
One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not
another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to
the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the
Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
harm & suffering."

The rest of the sutta explains the dependent arising of consciousness and other things.
(Re)birth of what?
So, the Buddha did indeed teach that it is the mental idea of the self that is (re)born, and not any specific individual identity.
It is individuality that is (re)born, not the individual. Please also see this answer.
This is also in line with the teaching of sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self.
From SN 12.20:

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom
as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently
arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the
past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what
did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the
future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the
future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?
Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will
now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not
exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and
where will it go?’

Eternalism and annihilationism
In other suttas, we see that the belief in a specific self identity as having existed in the past and will exist in the future, is the view of eternalism.
On the other hand, thinking that there is no self at all (AN 6.38), or that a specific self identity will be destroyed in the future at death or some other point in time, is the view of annihilationism.
The Buddha taught the middle (SN 12.17), which is dependent origination.
If you step into a flowing river then step out then later step in again, would you be stepping into the same river twice? It may appear so, but in reality, the molecules, flow speed, temperature, pressure etc. of the river would have changed. So, it's not the exact same river.
Similarly, the mental idea of the self keeps changing throughout one's life, and even throughout a single day. Also consciousness, the mind, the body, is also changing. The mind changes more rapidly than the body (SN 12.61).
Let's say a certain individual named George exists with his own personality, likes and dislikes, opinions etc. One day his brain becomes damaged or perhaps deteriorated due to Alzheimer's disease. So, has the individual George who has existed before, now become destroyed? No. It's just that the dependently originated self has now changed.
Delineating the birth, continuity and death of a certain individual named George, is in fact the view of eternalism and annihilationism. In reality, what or who George is, has changed throughout his life. When he damaged his brain, has he disappeared? When he died, has he disappeared? Well, there was no single permanent entity called George that had existed. He always changed, just like the river.
The ever-changing dependently originated identity of George is like a kind of rebirth of the mental idea of self and the rebirth of individuality, that occurs from moment to moment as long as the mind-body phenomena operates.
Some even say that heaven, hell, animal births etc. are all allegorical and representative of different mental states.
Buddhism and neuroscience
I would in fact argue that Buddhism is very close to modern neuroscience.
The idea here is that there is the mind and there is the body. Both are separate from each other, yet are mutually dependent on one another.
If you drink alcohol, the body affects the mind. If you are depressed and this triggers diseases, the mind affects the body. They are mutually dependent.
The mind is not in the body. It's like software or information. The body is like hardware. Just like how you can transfer a message from one phone to another, the mind can send ideas to others.
The individual or specific self identity is also just a mental idea. It is ever-changing and is dependently originated based on conditions. It arises from the mind-body phenomena.
The idea that a specific individual must behave well, so that he will be reborn in good lives in future, is a teaching for beginners in Buddhism. The goal is to reduce or eliminate suffering in the distant future.
For advanced students of Buddhism, the teaching is "all phenomena is not self" (sabbe dhamma anatta). The goal is to reduce or eliminate suffering in the here-and-now.

This is a great answer. The only thing I'd criticize is the line, "the Buddha did indeed teach that it is the mental idea of the self that is (re)born." I don't think this is true. That is, I don't think the Buddha ever explicitly said nor implicitly intended people to understand that it is "the mental idea of the self" that is reborn. Rather, I think he explicitly stated that rebirth conventionally exists, that the fruits of karma conventionally exist, that people conventionally are born, grow old, die, and are reborn and that they are also reborn from moment to moment.

I know this might seem like a nitpicking difference, but much like whether 're' is important or not - and I would say it is - I think this nitpicking difference is also important.

@YesheTenley The birth of the mental idea of the self is in the becoming (bhava) and birth (jati) nidanas of dependent origination. So, it is explicit.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/44819/what-is-reborn-did-the-buddha-explicitly-state-that-it-is-the-mental-idea-of

Thank you for this.  I do rarely see this understanding so eloquently stated from practitioners.  Not to suggest that I fully grasp all the implications of this understanding, but this is the understanding I seek to enrich and to deepen.

"So what I want to know is Is Rebirth Scientifically Proven or is it true?"
No, there is no scientific consensus that rebirth is true. Yes, rebirth is conventionally true. Yes, the Buddha taught conventional rebirth and the consequences thereof. Yes, there have been testaments of people recalling their past lives. Yes, it is something you could put to the test via following the Buddha's path to see if it results in knowledge of past lives as he proclaimed. Yes, it is possible to understand rebirth through reason and logic. If one does so one will find that the view that you are espousing here is contradicted by the doctrine of annata and emptiness. As Ruben explains here:

Believing that physical death is a special moment that fundamentally
changes the process of birth (of the mental idea of the self) that
happens from moment to moment is the same as believing that something
ultimately existed and has ceased to exist (i.e. annihilationism).

What you are describing are the views of the Charvaka school of ancient Indian materialism with a "scientific" subtext. However, there is very little "scientific" about these views. In other words, your views are not science, but rather the artifice of naive scientific materialism which ironically is contradicted by our best physical theories. If you'd like references on that last point I'd be happy to provide them. Scientific materialism is not science, but rather a form of scientism.
You state that rebirth is utterly impossible yet provide no evidence - scientific or otherwise - to uphold this belief. Based upon this false belief you are drawing the conclusion that the Buddhist path of Dharma is false. It is quite an extraordinary testament to the danger of your school of tenets.
There is no other world other than this;
There is no heaven and no hell;
The realm of Shiva and like regions,
are fabricated by stupid imposters.

— Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verse 8

And here is the Buddha describing these views:

“There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven
grounds proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of
an existent being. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these
honourable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?
“Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the
following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form;
it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim
the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

And here are the views of Ajita Kesakambali who was an ancient Charvaka teacher as described in sutta:

"When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there
is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no
fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no
next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no
brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly,
proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and
realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary
elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with
the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with
the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the
external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the
external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four
men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are
sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn
pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by
idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are
false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the
foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after
death.'
"Thus, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible
here and now, Ajita Kesakambalin answered with annihilation. Just as
if a person, when asked about a mango, were to answer with a
breadfruit; or, when asked about a breadfruit, were to answer with a
mango. In the same way, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative
life, visible here and now, Ajita Kesakambalin answered with
annihilation. The thought occurred to me: 'How can anyone like me
think of disparaging a brahman or contemplative living in his realm?'
Yet I neither delighted in Ajita Kesakambalin's words nor did I
protest against them. Neither delighting nor protesting, I was
dissatisfied. Without expressing dissatisfaction, without accepting
his teaching, without adopting it, I got up from my seat and left.

These views are very dangerous. They are not in accordance with Buddhism and those espousing them while also claiming to be following the Buddhist path are confused and treading a dangerous precipice. Further, the views associated here are contradicted by the doctrine of annata and thus fail inclusion within the four dharma seals.

It would be helpful, in my opinion, if your answer addressed the OP’s question.

@arturovm I've edited to answer more succinctly in the beginning. Hope this addresses your comment.

If it was proven then  science would be buddhist.
There might be evidences that point to that, but no concrete studied proof - science is base on facts and examination trough the scientific method.
I have proofs of rebirth and spirits but it's from my point of view.

I have proofs of rebirth and death but it is from my point of view. I’m afraid that doesn’t qualify as proof.

I'm not a religious person.
But even so I believe that some things are beyond what humans are capable of understanding at the moment and that's fine time isn't really scientific you can't really prove or disprove it at the end of the day it's there because you believe it's there. If you believe in rebirth or Buddhism or any other religion who cares what someone else thinks in the end who knows you might be right you might be wrong.


text:
What is (re)born? Did the Buddha explicitly state that it is "the mental idea of the self" that is reborn?
It's been asserted by some knowledgeable individuals that the Buddha explicitly identified "the mental idea of the self" as what is (re)born in samsara and has done so in suttas spelling out the doctrine of dependent origination.
Is it true that the Buddha explicitly identified "the mental idea of the self" as what is (re)born in samsara?
If not, is it true that the Buddha implicitly intended to identify "the mental idea of the self" as what is (re)born in samsara?
Please provide sutta references.
In the Prasangika Madhyamaka we say it is the "mere I" that is reborn and not the "mental idea of the self" and we say how it is reborn is through the doctrine of dependent origination which involves the mental idea of the self. I think this is a significant difference.

I agree with the answer by Andrei.
Whatever ignorance is left in the mind continues to arise. So not only the self idea but all the ignorance not removed by following the right path will arise.
That said, I would like to add that these higher teachings could be risky if parroted to everyone without regard to the person's stage of development. Some people who don't have a well-developed virtue and a thick attachment to self-love, like myself, could fall into confusion and/or abandon virtuous acts. So, if anyone is tied in that loop I urge you to read this question that I asked a while back; there are some good answers given there for the benefit of the Dhamma here and now.
I also think that is the reason why in some of the teachings the idea of Kamma is presented crudely as quoted below, to sound as if you are reborn of your own actions. It may sound wrong, but saying you are reborn, and that another 'mind and matter' are reborn, is the same, because you are a mind and matter with the same ignorance that gets reborn. So it is all semantic.

"'I am the owner of my actions (Kamma), heir to my actions, born of my
actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my
arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall
heir'..

When you mention 'risk' I want to avoid misunderstanding you... what do you believe entails the highest risk to the lowest risk for someone not versed in "these higher teachings?" 1) teaching that what is reborn is the person 2) teaching that it is mind+matter that is reborn 3) teaching that it is the mental idea of the self that is reborn?

In my opinion, the second teaching is the riskiest. The 3 could also be risky if the learner thinks just an idea is reborn and concluded by saying 'why care it's just an idea'. I think the risk is clear if you read the question I noted above.

I think at the very least the idea of self ( i mean the illusory I) should not be quickly attacked. This answer by @Mishu 米殊 to one of my questions highlight why the illusory self is very important...[link] https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/20819/12931

Interesting perspective, thank you, although I personally fall into the "too much upaya is equally harmful" gang. +1 for the insight.

FWIW @user21048 I think even the "highest teachings" acknowledge the conventional existence of rebirth of the person. That sentient beings are reborn cyclically in samsara. That Yeshe, Andrei, and user21048 are reborn. There is no contradiction at all from the lowest teachings to the highest teachings about this.

It is not the case that "the mental idea of the self" is reborn or at least it is the case that the person is reborn as well and not just the mental idea. And it is only the case that "mind + matter" is reborn in that "mind + matter" is the illustration of the person in a conventional sense.

Generally, the suttas say "a being" is "reborn", as follows:

When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away &
reappearance of beings. 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.' Thus — by means of
the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing
away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior,
beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their
kamma.
MN 4

The suttas say "a being" is merely a "view" of "attachment":

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
SN 5.10

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to
be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
being.'
"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:
as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst,
fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they
have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel
possessive of them.
SN 23.2

From Milindapanha:

-- “What is it, Nàgasena, that is reborn?”
-- “Mind and matter (namarupa).”
-- “Is it this very mind and matter that is reborn?”
-- “No, it is not, but by this mind and matter deeds are done and because of those deeds another mind and matter is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released from the results of its previous deeds.

Just like an adult "inherits" results of the choices made by the child - even though most of the original body cells are gone, similarly future existence "inherits" karma from the past existence.

--“Can there be any rebirth where there is no transmigration?”
--“Yes there can, just as a man can light one oil-lamp
from another but nothing moves from one lamp to the
other; or as a pupil can learn a verse by heart from a teacher
but the verse does not transmigrate from teacher to pupil.”

It is information and causation that is reborn, or is re-embodied. Or, as Chogyam Trungpa said, it is our neuroses that are reborn.

Do you see a significant difference between saying that the "mere I" is reborn due to neuroses or saying that the "mere I" is reborn due to information and causation? VS saying that it is neuroses that is reborn or that it is information and causation that is reborn? If you don't agree that with "mere I" substitute a conventionally existing person. Like say Andrei or Yeshe :)

@AndreiVolkov When read together with the sutta that says that mind and body comes from "old kamma" without mentioning whose old kamma, this could also imply that we inherit "old kamma" from our parents, family, community, surroundings, media, books etc.

@Yeshe Call me rad, but I think rebirth is an outdated metaphor for what is going on and I think it somewhat discredits Buddhism in the modern world.

@ruben2020 don't we? (or if that's what you're saying, then: yeah!)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I don't know Yeshe (:
But I think you don't exist as an identity, if you are always changing as a ''person'' and in body then you don't exist or you wouldn't change. What you really are is beneath what you believe and think. And because you aren't an identity that doesn't accompany you. Only your karma which is your pure essence I think.
Is like you are a buddha but as you may not still see it you just go trough life as actions direct you trough. And Karma.

From Snp 4.14 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

"I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer, about seclusion & the
state of peace. Seeing in what way is a monk unbound, clinging to
nothing in the world?".
"He should put an entire stop to the root of
objectification-classifications:  'I am the thinker.'

From the translator's commentary:

On objectification-classifications and their role in leading to
conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to MN 18. The perception,
"I am the thinker" lies at the root of these classifications in that
it reads into the immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I;
being/not-being; thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then
can proliferate into mental and physical conflict. The conceit
inherent in this perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become
unbound, one must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all
take for granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are
not inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able
to drop them.

Do you believe this is the Buddha explicitly equating the mental idea of the self with what is reborn when he talked about the rebirth of persons? Do you believe this is the Buddha implicitly equating the mental idea of the self with what is reborn when he talked about the rebirth of persons?

Is 'I am the thinker' what is reborn or is it the monk that is reborn due to not putting a stop to 'I am the thinker'
or do you believe these are equivalent ways of saying the same thing?


text:
How do novice Tibetan monks meditate 23 hours a day?
According to Lama Surya Das, novice monks traditionally meditate 23 hours a day, with one hour for sleep.  I met another American lama who said the same thing.  How is this even possible?  Even if the monk goes into deep meditation, is one hour of sleep enough?  And these were novices.
I have wondered about this for years, and can't seem to find anything about it on the web.  I often meditate when tired, because of chronic insomnia, and I often wonder what the relationship between sleep and meditation is.  Does anyone know anything about this practice?
Sorry if this is not specific enough, but I don't know anything else about this practice, but I find it extremely intriguing.

One can get by on little to no sleep when one mediates a lot but it requires a lot of learning and jhana.
If one had a good novice and a good teacher, under perfect conditions, then i think it is maybe possible to train some person in this way.
However in practise when one gets to little to no sleep stages then one will often skip a night altogether or find oneself too restless to sleep at a particular time.
Even Buddha's novices didn't do this and monks were advised to sleep in the 2nd watch of the night.
Therefore i don't think one can find a place where novices sleep only an hour a day lest they are forced to do it.
Forcing one is abuse and isn't even useful for meditation. I imagine many places are abusive.

You're assuming they are meditating and not actually sleeping for some of those 23 hours.  ;-)
When we do a sesshin, we'll sit somewhere in the area of 16 hours a day.  Let me tell you, even with 5 hours of scheduled sleep, as a novice you'll end up dozing off on the cushion for at least an hour if not more.  Another four hours or so will be spent in a half sleep state.  You get your rest, one way or the other.  The body takes what it needs.  And of course, do this long enough and you even start to get pretty good at sleeping sitting up!
But a funny thing happens after about three days of this.  Even beginners start to feel energized and need less sleep overall.  People who have been practicing for, say, ten years or more stop needing sleep altogether.  In fact, you are so energized, sleep just doesn't come.
Don't get me wrong, 23 hours sounds a bit excessive, but it's not so far outside the realm of possibility as it might sound - even for a motivated beginner.

I remember Lama Surya Das said something similar--sometimes he would stretch out in his cell and nap for a while.  Very interesting about not needing sleep.  Can't imagine!

@mckinzie25 - the energy that is poured into self-driven motivations is astonishing. That's why humans sleep so long; it's tiresome trying to keep up with the persistent demands of egotism. When you reach a particular part of practice, this becomes abundantly clear... more energy is freed and sleeping time is reduced. Energy is available to you on-tap.

Also, if you are sitting on your duff for 15+ hours a day, you aren't exactly exerting a ton of energy either.  So there's that.


text:
Does "old karma" come from our parents, family, community, surroundings?
In SN 35.145 (below), we see that the body, intellect etc. is "old karma", capable to be felt. But it doesn't say whose "old karma" it is. The sutta also talks about "new karma" generated by decisions and actions within our control, but also not pinned to a specific individual self identity. Also SN 12.37 reiterates this.

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The
tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

The following comes from SN 12.17 (although this quote comes from here). Here, karma is not pinned to a specific self identity or a specific individual. Karma is attributed to past decisions and actions, coming from dependently originated conditions.

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)".

From MN 38, SN 22.85, SN 12.20 and other suttas, and from "sabbe dhamma anatta" (all phenomena is not self - Dhp 279), we have learned that there is no specific individual self that is permanent, unchanging and continues to wander within this or other lives. The endeavouring being (self) (AN 6.38) is ever-changing and arises from dependently originated conditions.
So, where does the "old karma" which generated our physical body and our mind come from?
Does it come from our parents, family, community, media, books, surroundings?
Are there any scriptural references or commentaries to support this?

Would you welcome answers from outside of pali canon as well or rather restrict this to just theravada?

@YesheTenley You can answer outside of Pali Canon and Theravada.

When you feel a breeze on your skin, where does the breeze come from? Is there a single time or place where we can say "The breeze started here"? Is there a group of air molecules such that we can say "These molecules (and no others) are the breeze"? A breeze comes from everywhere and nowhere. It is the culmination of all the movements of the atmosphere, dependent on all the breezes that came before, and on the heat of the sun and the earth as they pass through the days and the seasons.
Karma is like the breeze: neither here nor there, not specific to this or that, not inherent in him or her or them. It's not personal. It's the culmination of all the movements of human minds as they brush past and push against each other, dependent on all the actions of all who have come before. Our bodies are given to us by the actions or our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents, etc... Our minds our shaped by the minds of our parents, which were in turn shaped by the minds of our grandparents... Our bodies and minds are continuations of karma that ran through them to us, and continues on from us to others.

this answer reminds me of John 3.8  https://biblehub.com/john/3-8.htm

SN 35.145 & SN 12.37 provide a supramundane (lokuttara) definition of "old kamma"; in that SN 12.37 says the sense bases and collection (kaya; body) of aggregates: "is not yours, nor does it belong to others". This teaching is also found in SN 5.9 (about the nun Selā). In other words, SN 35.145 & SN 12.37 appear to say "old kamma" is not actions made by a "person" or "self" in the past; as is ordinarily or mundanely understood by puthujjana.
SN 35.145 & SN 12.37 appear to never say: "old karma generated our (lol) physical body and our mind". Instead, these suttas appear to say the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind are the places where old kamma was manifested in the past & also can manifest in the present.
For example, if old habitual kamma was made in the past of eating a certain food; when the habitual underlying tendency flows out (asava) in the present; the mental mind memory of that food will flow out (asava) in association with causing a simultaneous salivation of the tongue and arousal of the body. It could even cause subtle manifestations in the eye; preparing the eye for new pleasure seeking new kamma.
Thus, taking the Jain meaning of "vedaniyaṁ" to mean "producing feeling", these suttas appear to say old kamma is the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind & aggregates that were mentally conditioned or proliferated about in the past (abhisaṅkhataṁ; accusative; past participle) , willed in the past (abhisañcetayitaṁ; accusative; past participle) and produce feeling in the present (vedaniyaṁ).
Again, for puthujjana stuck in materialism or physicalism, "mentally conditioning or proliferating about" the eye means, in the past, the mind proliferated ideas about/via the eye & the seen, such as "beautiful, ugly, etc".
Therefore, unlike the puthujjana, the mind of the Noble Disciple does not venture back to the past (MN 131) but practises vedanānupassanā in the present, namely, the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind are to be "felt" ("vedaniyaṁ"), in the present moment, as explained in the Salt Crystal Sutta.

Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
dwelling with the immeasurable.[1] A trifling evil deed done by this
sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most
part barely appears for a moment.
Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal

For example, when an Arahant (such as Angulimala) is attacked by others for old kamma, those verbal & physical attacks are merely sounds at the ear and touches on the body. For an Arahant, there is no self that did old kamma. Any manifestation of old (purāṇa) willed (abhisañcetayitaṁ) proliferated (abhisaṅkhataṁ) kamma (kammaṁ) will only produce feeling (vedaniyaṁ) for the Noble Disciple that only feels the "first arrow" (per SN 36.6).
However, if the mind does recollect "past abodes" (per SN 22.79), the past again is not viewed in terms of "self" or "personal kamma" but merely as mere impersonal aggregates (SN 22.79).
In short, there is really no such thing as "old kamma". Instead, there is only the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind is the present moment; in their present state; where any manifestation of old kamma will only produce feeling (vedaniyaṁ) for the Noble Disciple that only feels the "first arrow" (per SN 36.6).
That is why SN 35.145 ends as follows:

And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma?
Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right
speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice
leading to the cessation of kamma.

Note: the phrase in SN 12.37 (""is not yours, nor does it belong to others") is also found in SN 5.9, which is related to SN 5.10, which are both about the non-reality of "a being". Therefore, as said, these old-kamma suttas redefined "old kamma" and removed "the being" from old kamma.
Note: as repeated inexhaustible times on this forum, "a being" is merely "a view", per SN 5.10 and SN 23.2.

I've marked this answer down as it is obviously incorrect (and repeated a great number of times) since SN 5.10 does not say that "a being" is merely "a view", but rather says "There's the convention 'a being.'"

Also, SN 12.37 does not "appear to say "old kamma" is not actions made by a "person" or "self" in the past;"  rather, it literally says, "It’s old deeds, and should be seen as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt." You seem to be missing "produced by choices and intentions" and "old deeds"

SN 12.37 clearly says the old kamma is "not yours". I recommend reading the sutta accurately to avoid your apparent doctrine of self and eternalism.


text:
Semi-consistent Long Sessions Versus Regular Short Sessions
I've noticed it's really difficult for me to be consistent, even with short meditation. I'm thus hesitating between:

10 min sessions every day
40 min sessions every 2 or 3 days

Which of these seems more beneficial?

Tried doing at least 10 and more on days when you feel like it?

Long sits everyday is the most optimal.  As I've written you time and time again, you have to do the work.  There are no shortcuts.  There is only the hard way.  Stop looking for excuses.

Based on my personal experience, and also on some of the research on habits, short but consistent sessions might be better to help ease you into longer sessions. If your brain gradually transfers the act of starting your meditation from the willpower-related regions to the habit-related regions, and you start observing the benefits and pleasure derived from short sits done consistently over time, my hope is you'll find less and less resistance to longer sessions.
In my experience, I've obtained the best results if I sit at approximately the same time, in the same place in my routine during the day (e.g. right after waking up and hearing a short Dhamma talk, or at the end of my work day, to help me process the events of the day).
I hope this is helpful. Metta.


text:
Is there any advice in the Buddhist scriptures that would help a leader balance a safe economy with people's concerns about sickness & death?

Is there advice in the various Buddhist scriptures that a leader
could use in this Coronavirus situation?
Is there advice in the Buddhist scriptures that a lay-person could
use in this Coronavirus situation?
What are Buddhist leaders doing about this Coronavirus situation?

Why would people vote this question down? This question kicks ass imho.

It's a great question. I think it should be clear by now that authority is collapsing. S&P 500 is on a steady decline. People are very sceptical about large companies mostly due to the health issues that the vaccine has caused; its a global catastrophe that is largely being ignored! A decentralised society, where people are encouraged to generate their own resources, is a viable route forwards. However, greed has found a way to infest the virtues of looking after the planet through the guise of climate change. All just stories about nothing, of course! ;-)

Buddha taught to examine the cost (ādīnava) vs benefit (assāda) of worldly things. It follows world leaders must examine the benefits of their Covid measures (eg here) versus the damaging consequences (eg here or here or here or here) of their Covid measures.
As for Buddhist leaders, most would be engaged in the passive political correctness most Buddhist leaders engage in today.

The first sentence ("The Buddha taught...") seems on-topic, but would be clearer with references to Buddhist doctrine, so a reader can assess how that (referenced doctrine) is applicable to the OP.

@Dhamma Dhatu Could you reference Buddhist scripture?

@Dhamma Dhatu I didn't know you liked memes. I thought you were in a cave somewhere with a cellphone.  I see your thumbnail is related to this question.

The government and leaders should provide just protection and security to its citizens. Basically, they should undertake the right measures to take care of their people.

From DN 26:

‘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.

The lay Buddhist should play the role of a good patient and heed the advice of competent authorities.

From Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Vinaya, the Buddha taught:

"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.

Buddhist leaders should set a good example as the Dalai Lama had done (from this article).

The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader His Holiness the Dalai Lama has
received his second dose of the Covishield vaccine at his residence on
Monday, according to CTA run Tibet.net. He received the first jab on
March 6 at Zonal hospital in Dharamshala.
“The vaccine was administered by a medical team of Delek hospital led
by Dr Tseten Dorjee, personal physician to His Holiness,” Tibet.net
reported. The entire staff and security details of His Holiness,
including those living in the residence, were also vaccinated, the
report further stated. ...
The Nobel laureate wrote that he has been following the alarming news
of the pandemic across the world, especially including in India. “May
I take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation for all the
efforts that are being made to tackle this devastating pandemic,
especially by those courageously working on the frontline. I pray that
the pandemic threat will end soon,” he wrote. ...
The Dalai Lama cancelled all his public engagements since February
last year and engaged with the pubic through virtual platform for
teachings and other interactive dialogues with students, Buddhist
followers, and various organizations from all across the world. The
Buddhist leader’s only public appearance since the lockdown was during
his first Covishied jab at the local hospital last month, where he
urged others to take the injection, “I want to share that more people
should have the courage to take this injection.”

I'm not sure  that I would agree that there are any "competent" authorities.

What do you think, great king? Suppose a man, trustworthy and
reliable, were to come to you from the east and on arrival would say:
'If it please your majesty, you should know that I come from the east.
There I saw a great mountain, as high as the clouds, coming this way,
crushing all living beings [in its path]. Do whatever you think should
be done.' Then a second man were to come to you from the west... Then
a third man were to come to you from the north... Then a fourth man
were to come to you from the south and on arrival would say: 'If it
please your majesty, you should know that I come from the south. There
I saw a great mountain, as high as the clouds, coming this way,
crushing all living beings. Do whatever you think should be done.' If,
great king, such a great peril should arise, such a terrible
destruction of human life — the human state being so hard to obtain —
what should be done?"
"If, lord, such a great peril should arise, such a terrible
destruction of human life — the human state being so hard to obtain —
what else should be done but Dhamma-conduct, right conduct, skillful
deeds, meritorious deeds?"
SN 3.25

The following "advice" seems suitable for all of the people mentioned in your question. Translation and opening comment by Ven. Ṭhānissaro.

Being Consummate - Sampadā Sutta  (AN 5:130)
This discourse serves as a strong reminder not to break the precepts
even for the sake of people or things one holds dear.

“Monks, there are these five kinds of loss. Which five? Loss of
relatives, loss of wealth, loss through disease, loss in terms of
virtue, loss in terms of views. It’s not by reason of loss of
relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease that beings—with
the break-up of the body, after death—reappear in a plane of
deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. It’s by reason of
loss in terms of virtue and loss in terms of views that beings—with
the break-up of the body, after death—reappear in a plane of
deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. These are the
five kinds of loss.
“There are these five ways of being consummate. Which five? Being
consummate in terms of relatives, being consummate in terms of wealth,
being consummate in terms of freedom from disease, being consummate in
terms of virtue, being consummate in terms of views. It’s not by
reason of being consummate in terms of relatives, being consummate in
terms of wealth, or being consummate in terms of freedom from disease
that beings—with the break-up of the body, after death—reappear in a
good destination, a heavenly world. It’s by reason of being consummate
in virtue and being consummate in terms of views that beings—with the
break-up of the body, after death—reappear in a good destination, a
heavenly world. These are the five ways of being consummate.”


text:
In Buddhist ethics, where does personal responsibility end?
Regarding the teachings on virtue, not considering the more advanced teachings (such as Dependent Origination), did the Buddha ever speak of where the sphere of personal responsibility ends?
The Buddha seems to be clear that what determines the moral quality of one's volitional actions is the intention behind them. But other times, such as when discussing wrong livelihood, it seems that one is responsible for second-order effects as well (e.g. the harm that might result from the weapons that one has sold).
So is there something exceptional to trading in weapons to qualify it as wrong livelihood? Or is there more nuance to the teachings of virtue, and one is responsible for some second-order effects as well? If the latter is true, then in which cases is one responsible?
Are there any Suttas I can read about this?
Thank you, and Metta.

MN 61 is the most basic sutta about ethics, which refers to not harming oneself or another.
SN 55.7 is more extensive, as follows:

Reflecting this way, first, he gives up killing beings. Second, he
encourages others to abstain from killing beings, and third, he
praises the act of abstaining from killing beings. So, his bodily
behaviour is purified in three ways.

Therefore, not engaged in the wrong livelihood of selling weapons, poisons, etc, is an example of: "encourages others to abstain from killing beings".
Then there is AN 4.62 similar to DN 31), which extolls the virtue of blamlessless in relation to livelihood. If you sell weapons then learn your weapons were used by others to kill people, you might feel blame.

The key factor of Buddhist ethics is whether the choice generates or does not generate suffering.
Suffering is not limited to personal suffering or suffering one directly causes, but also indirectly caused suffering, for example by setting people against each other ("divisive speech").
The phrases Buddha often uses in suttas is "long-term harm & suffering" and "long-term welfare & happiness" which gives us a glimpse of his priorities, it's long-term effects of an action that matter most. Indeed in the Devadaha Sutta the Buddha reviews an example of surgeon that causes short term suffering to ensure long-term wellbeing of a patient.
To summarize, it is long-term suffering directly or indirectly caused by an act that we should strive to minimize, while maximizing the direct and indirect causes of long-term welfare and happiness.


text:
How to part with potentially harmful possessions
In line with my understanding of the teachings, I have been letting go of many possessions that have been accumulating in my life. I realized they really are unnecessary, they mostly just add stress to my life, and I can possibly use them to do good for myself and others by turning them into gifts/dana.
I decided to clear out my parents garage of most of the things they are storing from my childhood. Initially, I quickly came up with the plan to sell all the valuables donating their proceeds to the Sangha, and donate anything else to Goodwill or a similar non-profit thrift store. However, as I thought about it, I began to consider the Buddha's teachings about right livelihood and the five trades he specifically discouraged as well as his teachings to the actor, Talaputa.
My understanding of this teaching regarding livelihood is that the Buddha discourages participating in trade where you will be harmed or encourage others to be harmed through the breaking of the precepts, or in arousing passions, aversion or delusion. As I thought about this, I have started wondering: is it right to sell my old valuables, or even give away possessions that may cause this kind of harm to their recipients? Would it be better to just throw these things away?
I would like to keep the question general, as perhaps others will have this same dilemma but have different possessions; but in my case, there are a few notable examples that have me perplexed, including:
Things that could be classified as weapons like fishing poles, fishing tackle. Fishing/camping/bushcraft knives.
Things that have fed my passion for sensuality (and still do even as I have firmly decided to part with them). Like my trading card game collections of Magic the Gathering and Pokemon. And my collection of retro video games.
Even things like kids toys, stuffed animals, action figures, nerf guns all seem like they will excite passion, aversion and delusion in their ultimate recipients.
So I am having this dilemma, because some of the things are valuable and could become support for the Sangha through the donation of the proceeds. But, the vast majority of the items are now questionable to me as to whether they cause harm. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to part with these possessions skillfully?

[Angulimala:] "At long last a greatly revered great seer  for my sake
has come to the great forest. Having heard your verse in line with the
Dhamma, I will go about having abandoned evil."
So saying, the bandit hurled his sword & weapons    over a cliff    into
a chasm,
a pit. Then the bandit paid homage to the feet of the One Well-gone, and right there requested the Going-forth.
The Awakened One, the compassionate great seer, the teacher of the
world, along with its devas, said to him then:    "Come, bhikkhu." That
in itself was bhikkhuhood for him.
Angulimala Sutta

Such a great sutta. Such a pleasure to read.


text:
Is this the same nun in these sutta references?
From sutta SA 2.218:

The renunciant Gotama is staying at Sāvatthī at the Jeta Grove in the
Anāthapiṇḍika Park. And there is the nun Selā who took her robes and
her begging bowl and entered Sāvatthī to beg for food. Having finished
her meal, she cleaned her bowl, gathered her seat and has gone to the
Andhavana forest. I shall disturb her!” Having thought this he changed
into a young man, approached her and spoke a verse:
“Who is it that created beings,
by whom were they made?
Why are they called beings,
from where do they arise?”

That time the nun Selā, having heard the verse thought: “Who is this?
What a cheat! Is he a human or a non-human being?” She entered
concentration and recognized he was King Māra. She answered with a
verse:
“Māra, you have a wrong view of ‘beings’,
saying and believing they actually exist as substantial entities.
Conventional, empty they are but compounded entities
there are in fact no ‘beings.’
Like when causes and various conditions
converge and yield the use of a ‘chariot’.

From sutta SN 5.10:

Then Māra the Wicked, wanting to make the nun Vajirā feel fear,
terror, and goosebumps, wanting to make her fall away from immersion,
went up to her and addressed her in verse:
“Who created this sentient being?
Where is its maker?
Where has the being arisen?
And where does it cease?”

Then the nun Vajirā thought, “Who’s speaking this verse, a human or a
non-human?”
Then she thought, “This is Māra the Wicked, wanting to make me feel
fear, terror, and goosebumps, wanting to make me fall away from
immersion!”
Then Vajirā, knowing that this was Māra the Wicked, replied to him in
verse:
“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?
Māra, is this your theory?
This is just a pile of conditions,
you won’t find a sentient being here.

When the parts are assembled
we use the word ‘chariot’.
So too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

And from Mil 3.1.1:

Very good! Your Majesty has rightly grasped the meaning of “chariot.”
And just even so it is on account of all those things you questioned
me about— The thirty-two kinds of organic matter in a human body, and
the five constituent elements of being—that I come under the generally
understood term, the designation in common use, of “Nāgasena.” For it
was said, Sire, by our Sister Vajirā in the presence of the Blessed
One:
“Just as it is by the condition precedent
Of the co-existence of its various parts
That the word ‘chariot’ is used,
Just so is it that when the Skandhas
Are there we talk of a ‘being.’”

Most wonderful, Nāgasena, and most strange. Well has the puzzle put
to you, most difficult though it was, been solved. Were the Buddha
himself here he would approve your answer. Well done, well done,
Nāgasena!

Are these verses about the same nun? Is there anything more known about her?

They seem to be two different persons.
Info on Vajira Theri:

Vajirā Therī. The Samyutta Nikāya (S.i.134f) relates that one day, when she was taking her siesta in Adhavana at Sāvatthi, Mārā
questioned her as to the origin of “being" (satta), its creator, its
origin, its destiny. Vajirā answers that there is no such thing as
“being," apart from certain conditioned factors, like a chariot, which
exists only because of its parts. Māra retires discomfited.
Vajirā's verses are often quoted (E.g Kvu. 240, 626; Mil. p.28;
Vsm.ii.593) both in the Canon and in later works, but they are not
included in the Therīgāthā, nor do we know anything else about her.

Info on Sela Theri:

Selā Therī. She was born in Alavi as daughter of the king: therefore
she was also called Alavikā. When she was still unmarried the Buddha
visited Alavī with Alavaka, whom he had converted, carrying his
begging bowl and robe. On that occasion Sela went with her father to
hear the Buddha preach. She became a lay disciple, but later, agitated
in mind, she joined the Order and became an arahant. After that she
lived in Sāvatthi. One day, as she was enjoying her siesta in the
Andhavana under a tree, Māra, in the guise of a stranger, approached
her and tried to tempt her. But she refuted his statements regarding
the attractions of lay life, and Māra had to retire discomfited
(S.i.134; Thig.vss.57-9).
In the time of Padumuttara Buddha Selā was born in the family of a
clansman of Hamsavatī and was given in marriage. After her husband's
death she devoted herself to the quest of good, and went from ārāma to
ārāma and vihāra to vihāra, teaching the Dhamma to followers of the
religion. One day she came to the Bodhi tree of the Buddha and sat
down there thinking, "If a Buddha be peerless among men, may this tree
show the miracle of Enlightenment." Immediately the tree blazed forth,
the branches appeared golden, and the sky was all shining. Inspired by
the sight, she fell down and worshipped the tree, and sat there for
seven days. On the seventh day she performed a great feast of offering
and worship to the Buddha (ThigA.61f). Her Apadāna verses, quoted in
the Therīgāthā Commentary, are, in the Apadāna itself, attributed to a
Therī called Pañcadīpikā, and are twice repeated in these verses
(Ap.ii.519, repeated at 527f), however, she is mentioned as having
attained arahantship at the age of seven, and there is no reference to
her life as daughter of the king of Alavī.

Scriptures contain many repeated teachings and also repeated persons in contradictory contexts. It is likely many suttas are mere compositions rather than real events.
The above said, Selā is found in SN 5.9, which is the prior sutta to SN 5.10 with Vajirā.
In summary, the Agama appear to have mixed up these two suttas.
The Pali SN 5.9 with Sela becomes the Agama SA 2.219  with Vīrā.
The Pali SN 5.10 with Vajirā becomes the Agama SA 2.218 with Sela.


text:
Looking for anti-anti-monasticism apologia from a Buddhist perspective
It is commonly asserted that Buddhism advocates for monasticism as an ethical ideal for at least some of humanity. I am interested not in arguments for monasticism full stop, but arguments from a Buddhist perspective that are counter to arguments against monasticism as such. Does such a thing exist? I realize that there will be fuzzy line between these two domains, so sources that touch on both are acceptable to me.

lots of suttas but these should not be used to attack the lifestyles of laypeople. these suttas are for monks & nuns to read (rather than for laypeople to read)

Which suttas can I search for? I'm particularly interested in polemics that would be propagated widely across cultures and religions, but 'private' communiques are fine too.

Some of the anti-monastic arguments might come from people's parents (e.g. "we need you to help us earn a living"). I read that Buddhism tries to avoid that (conflict with lay society) by requiring that people have their parents' permission when they ordain.

Notably, a senior layperson once dragged a junior fellow layperson by the hair to see a Buddha:

MN81:9.1: Then Ghaṭīkāra grabbed Jotipāla by the hair of his freshly-washed head and said,
MN81:9.2: ‘Dear Jotipāla, the Buddha Kassapa’s monastery is not far away.
MN81:9.3: Let’s go to see the Blessed One Kassapa, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha.
MN81:9.4: For I regard it as holy to see that Blessed One.’

The senior layperson was Ghaṭīkāra. The junior layperson Jotipāla. It's quite the compelling ant-anti-monasticism sutta.  Here Ghaṭīkāra wishes Jotipāla to see the Buddha Kassapa. And Jotipāla stubbornly refuses in the most obnoxious anti-monastic way:

MN81:6.7: ‘Enough, dear Ghaṭīkāra.
MN81:6.8: What’s the use of seeing that baldy, that fake ascetic?’

But Ghaṭīkāra prevailed and they went to see the Buddha Kassapa. Inspired by that meeting, Jotipāla went forth.

MN81:12.4: And Jotipāla the brahmin student received the going forth, the ordination in the Buddha’s presence.

Ghaṭīkāra here takes the anti-anti-monastic role as a layperson. But Ghaṭīkāra is a special layperson, since he is also Buddha Kassapa's chief attendant in this sutta.
If you're interested, the sutta also explains why Ghaṭīkāra himself did not go forth. And Jotipāla? Jotipāla was eventually reborn as Gautama Buddha.

You can find some anti-monasticism stories and anti-anti-monasticism rebuttals in the following suttas. But I would say that anti-anti-monasticism arguments and for-monasticism arguments are more-or-less the same.
Please see Ud 1.8, MN 82, Thig 14.1.

Ud 1.8 and MN. 82 do not address arguments against monasticism insofar as they are arguments against worldly attachments. Thig 14.1 is closer to what I am looking for, thank you.