text:
Is there anything like discriminating intellect in Buddhism?
I was watching this Youtube video about 'witnessing self':

3 Stages in Witnessing Meditation - On the Journey towards Spiritual Enlightenment
This video describes the three stages in witnessing meditation. It is a technique known as Shakshi Bhav in Vedanta.

In it he talks about developing intellect that discriminates between 'subject and object'. He says discrimination between the 'contents of consciousness' and 'consciousness or awareness' has to be cultivated for spiritual growth.
I haven't come across any Buddhist term which relates to this. Is this Vipassana? If not whats this in Buddhist terms?

the video is Hinduism therefore it cannot be expected there is as equivalent in Buddhism

@Dhammadhatu care to explain how 'witnessing the present moment awareness' is any different than Mindfulness of the present moment that we as Buddhist practice.

buddhism does not teach 'witnessing the present moment awareness'. you appear to be mixing up buddhism with Western New Age Jewish ideas about Buddhism

couldn't write an answer, but you might want to read dogen on "spiritual intelligence" (denied) or the lankavatara sutra (which talks about discrimination a lot)... i understand neither!

In the Theravada traditions, I understand this be a reference to the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya-bhojjanga).
In the field of dhamma, discrimination comes about by the very act of investigation, and what is discriminated is then known as arising in dependence on other factors and that, globally, those factors harbour three definitive characteristics: transience, unsatisfaction and not-self. This is understood through what he calls the contents of consciousness but what I would call the six-sense consciousnesses - sometimes enumerated as 8 or 9 consciousnesses to include mānas-vijñāna and mano-vijñāna. I think the ninth consciousness is seen as nirvana.
With regard to the consciousness or awareness aspect (possibly nirvana) I suggest reading the fascinating answers to this very interesting question: What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface?.
It is only by investigating (and discriminating) the six-senses in this way that they are broken down by wisdom-understanding leaving behind a deeper understanding of reality; what you might call consciousness or awareness. I cannot see this as a cultivation. Nothing is cultivated. It is just that complications and their disturbances were removed to reveal the simplicity that had always been present.

Theravadin interpretation of the Sutta is that 4 aggregates are conjoined and 4 aggregates have objects. One aggregate is without an object. I leave it up to you to figure out which these are, answers here https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila
Consider this
Suppose you see a wooden house.
Here you objectify & think about what is thought of as 'the seen' as 'a house'. The house is here a 'seen object' iow it's an object of perception.

The house is not without a wall

the wall is not the house.

The wall is not without wood

the wood is not the wall.

The wood is not without a carbon atom

the carbon atom is not the wood

The atom is not without an electron

the electron is not the atom

The electron is not without observed properties

the observed properties of an electron are not the electron

The observed properties are not without observation

observation is not the observed property

The observation is not without that which observes

that which observes is not without observation

The observation is not without an object of observation

That which observes is here likewise an object of thought-based-perception, 'the cognized[thought] is objectified & thought about as 'that which observes' iow it likewise is an object of perception seen with intellect.

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Discernment
As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Friend, 'One of poor discernment, one of poor discernment': Thus is it said. To what extent is one said to be 'one of poor discernment'?"
"'One doesn't discern, one doesn't discern': Thus, friend, one is said to be 'one of poor discernment.' And what doesn't one discern? One doesn't discern, 'This is stress.' One doesn't discern, 'This is the origination of stress.' One doesn't discern, 'This is the cessation of stress.' One doesn't discern, 'This is the practice leading to the cessation of stress.' 'One doesn't discern, one doesn't discern': Thus one is said to be 'one of poor discernment.'"
Saying, "Very good, friend," Ven. Maha Kotthita — delighting in & approving of Ven. Sariputta's statement — asked him a further question: "Discerning, discerning': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is one said to be 'discerning'?"
"'One discerns, one discerns': Thus, friend, one is said to be 'discerning.' And what does one discern? One discerns, 'This is stress.' One discerns, 'This is the origination of stress.' One discerns, 'This is the cessation of stress.' One discerns, 'This is the practice leading to the cessation of stress.' 'One discerns, one discerns': Thus one is said to be 'discerning.'"
Consciousness
"'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?"
"'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'"
"Discernment & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them?"
"Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between them."
"Discernment & consciousness, friend: What is the difference between these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined?"
"Discernment & consciousness, friend: Of these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined, discernment is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully comprehended."[1]
Feeling
"'Feeling, feeling': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'feeling'?"
"'It feels, it feels': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'feeling.' And what does it feel? It feels pleasure. It feels pain. It feels neither pleasure nor pain. 'It feels, it feels': Thus it is said to be 'feeling.'"
Perception
"'Perception, perception': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'perception'?"
"'It perceives, it perceives': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'perception.' And what does it perceive? It perceives blue. It perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives white. 'It perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be 'perception.'"
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them?"
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?"
[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."
[Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?"
[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."
[Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?"
[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."
[Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?"
[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."
[Maha Kotthita:] "Being asked if, with the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Being asked if ... there is not anything else ... there both is & is not anything else ... there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?"
[Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies non-objectification.[1] The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.

Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Regarding "subject" and "object", the Buddha acknowledges these perceptions as:

MN146:6.27: ‘So these six interior sense fields are impermanent.’”
MN146:7.27: ‘So these six exterior sense fields are impermanent.’”

The Buddha also declares that for spiritual growth, it is important to understand that:

MN146:7.20: “But if they're impermanent, are they suffering or happiness?”
MN146:7.21: “Suffering, sir.”

interior vs exterior does not mean 'subject' vs 'object'

@Dhammadhatu I suppose your discrimination above is at their words' conventional level since the words do not exactly match. However, Buddhism is all about perceptions (sufferings), even at conventional level, same word may be perceived differently by different people during different times, sometimes it's hard to definitely judge like above situation. At the ultimate level all are empty. I think OyaMist just wanted to point out "discriminating intellect" is like our normal senses, impermanent, dependently originated, thus is also a kind of suffering, not proud as many intellects may feel...

Thank you both for your kind comments. I have nothing to add.

care to explain how 'witnessing the present moment awareness' is any different than Mindfulness of the present moment that we as Buddhist practice.
It may be that "witnessing" might be taken to imply the existence of "a witness" or "the witness", which is then reified or even deified (i.e. identified with Atman or Brahman or something like that).
Perhaps that's similar to the "I think therefore I am" kind of idea.
Whereas I think that, conversely, Buddhism talks about mindfulness or awareness, skillfulness or unskillfulness -- that these qualities exist, and that they can and should be distinguished -- while still being careful not to identify or promote the idea of a "subject" or self.

As far as I am aware the Buddhist meditation doesn’t focus on discrimination between observer and observed. We focus on the element which is causing stress. We can focus feelings , perception , form , choices and consciousness.... we do not indulge in any meditation which develops any idea of self (observer)  We can also focus on awakening factors ... we can meditate on love ,joy , ashubh , equanimity , impermanence etc but there is no room for self indulgence ....

Buddhism teaches.
1)Internal - I suppose this is the subject
2)External - I suppose this is the object
3)Internal External

To the folks who insist on downvoting, please note that downvoting is extremely unhelpful and actually qualifies as divisive and harsh speech. Be kind to others and please explain what an answer is missing. Better yet, simply provide a better answer.

Even correct answers can get downvoted here. It can be a matter of formatting, disagreeable meaning or expression. Our teacher has said that one ought not reject disagreeable expression without clarifying the meaning. I think downvotes can be abusive and are inappropriate if the meaning isn't clear. I usually downvote only what i think is harmful but even that is probably stupid because people generally don't agree on much here

@OyaMist Here's just a guess (not my downvote) from looking at the format of the answer, maybe someone didn't understand this answer; or found it too short -- not enough explanation of the sutta and of how that relates to the question. In general a downvote is meant to signal that, "This answer is not useful".


text:
Does downvoting an answer qualify as divisive and harsh speech?
In a comment to an answer on this site I saw this:

To the folks who insist on downvoting, please note that downvoting is
extremely unhelpful and actually qualifies as divisive and harsh
speech.

Do others agree? Does downvoting an answer necessarily qualify as divisive and harsh speech? I've thought of it as a form of feedback. Of course, if it is possible to elaborate and provide more constructive feedback then by all means...
Does downvoting violate the precept on correct speech?

If this is a question about how this site works, it should be on Buddhism Meta SE. If this is a question on Buddhism e.g. on the precept on correct speech, then it should be here, on Buddhism SE. So, which is it? Do you intend to ask whether downvoting violates the precept on correct speech? Or do you intend to ask what is the purpose of downvoting on this site?

I intend to ask whether downvoting violates the precept on correct speech. That is what I understood the comment to be asserting. I'm asking others if this is true.

upvoting can be divisive if you're upvoting someone using harmful speech!

I personally rarely downvote anything.  I upvote helpful content, and I feel like that's the kindest thing to do.

For those who may be jumping in after seeing this reach the Hot Questions list, this question is about downvoting behavior as interpreted in Buddhism rather than Stack Exchange policies or practices such as the Code of Conduct.

Downvoting is a major tool in the SE box, deliberately provided for whatever reason. Pretty-much by definition, that means in SE's terms it can't by itself qualify as unhelpful, divisive or harsh. Whether people misuse their power is a different question. In the wider world where motive can only be guessed, isn't down-voting "merely" a claim or statement that something is either wrong or inappropriate? Is the precept on "correct" speech a new translation of that on "right" or "loving" speech? I suggest down-voting should be allowed only with explanation and again, that's a different thing.

The intention behind the action is what matters. If, for example, a tyrannical user seeks to impose his will upon other users in order to control their speech, is it justified for those users to punish the tyrant until he changes his behavior? I believe the answer is YES. Moral restraints exist in all religions for 1 purpose. To keep the peace. If the rules are not enforced, there will be no peace. Therefore, rule enforcement is necessary. Do not censor the speech of others. Raise your objections and let others decide.

Divisive speech is speech that sets people up against each other. Divisive speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering.
A typical example of divisive speech is telling one person or group of people something negative about another person or group of people, usually in private. This gives one side a reason to generate aversion towards the other side.
Harsh speech is rude or offensive speech usually directed at its object. For example when you disagree with a person's understanding of Buddhism you tell him or her that he or she is an idiot, completely confused about right Dharma etc.
Harsh speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering by giving the other person a reason to generate aversion towards you and your opinions. This is especially dangerous and harmful if your opinions are actually right and beneficial, because it creates a reason for the other person to hate what's right and beneficial!
In both cases Buddha made exception for the senior bhikkhus to censor and reprimand the novice bhikkhus. He compared it with a surgeon causing temporary pain to a patient for the sake of long-term benefit. He also said, not speaking up when someone is wrong according to Dharma is by itself a problem, because it enables the wrong behavior or understanding to endure.
Finally, Buddha said that when saying things that are beneficial but unpleasant to others we must have a good sense of timing and tact, to say it in the most acceptable and the least harmful way.
From all the above we can understand that negative feedback is acceptable and even encouraged in Buddhism, provided it's done properly to make sure it lands well.
I don't think downvoting can qualify as divisive speech, because we are not (privately) setting up people against each other. Someone may say that it creates the reasons for other people to dislike the downvoted answer, but that would only be true if the answer could not be upvoted by someone else who finds it right and beneficial. At the end, it's the cumulative effect of multiple votes that matters, not a single up or down vote.
As to whether downvoting qualifies as harsh speech creating a reason for the author to dislike the downvoter, I think this would be true if the votes were not anonymous. However the way it is done on this site, no one can see who has voted something up or down so unless you tell the person you did it, their frustration does not have a specific object. This way it serves as a signal that their answer was not 100% acceptable by all readers which by itself is useful feedback IMO.
Then again, I think this falls into the territory of "the right timing and a sense of tact". Sometimes a gentle comment is more appropriate and sometimes a downvote or even a moderators flag is the right way to go.
Just my 2 cents.

I mostly agree with Andrei, so much so I will not try to enter my own answer. It is clear that Buddha did ‘downvote’ wrong thinking, both questions and answers, many times in the Sutras. So it cannot be wrong. However, he usually followed it up with right view teachings to help educate and lead the confused to correct knowledge.
For me, simply ‘downvoting’ without some correcting and clarifying comments could be misunderstood and construed as unhelpful and divisive. Something to be avoided.
I’d invite comments on this idea – not just downvotes, please. ;>)

Does anonymity really circumvent harsh speech? Wouldn't that be a rather significant loophole, like allowing you to be as harsh as you want in an anonymous message you send someone? Or, perhaps more applicable to this scenario, allowing people to e.g. take part in mobs shouting harsh things, given that the recipient may not know who actually shouted which what (other than just someone in the mob)? Or one might even argue any participation on a website using an alias would entirely fall under this loophole.

Good point. I think anonymous downvote is different from anonymous insult. The main point I make is, harsh speech is bad because of its propensity for generating conflict. Anonymous downvote was meant to be the simplest and least conflictogenic way of providing negative feedback. If it were not anonymous it would be more conflictogenic, can we agree on this? That said I agree that merely being anonymous does not make unwholesome communication wholesome.

Indeed there might be a bit less conflict than if it weren't anonymous, although I would argue whether it causes suffering is perhaps more applicable here. That isn't clearly better or worse when there's anonymity. But for both of those it probably indeed comes down to "the right timing and a sense of tact", and how it compares to other options in a specific situation. It also depends whether or not you consider "harsh speech" to include acceptable negative feedback (i.e. "harsh but acceptable" or "not harsh because acceptable"), but this may just be semantics.

Right. I'm glad we got beyond the basic rules of thumb and into wise application of principles. To me the principle that conflict/discord/clash/disharmony is the essence of dukkha and that therefore preventing one I can prevent the other has been extremely helpful to understand.

The purpose of upvoting and downvoting answers on this site is to give the community the chance to determine the quality of the answers.
So, the better the answer (in terms of being on-topic, correct, accurate, answers the question and supported by elaboration and references), the more upvotes it should get.
On the other hand, an answer which is on-topic and allowed (not spam, rude etc.), but is wrong or inaccurate, should get downvotes. In fact, I think it is beneficial to downvote wrong answers, so that readers are able to identify it as a negative example i.e. an example of wrong understanding.
Is it incorrect speech to downvote?
According to MN 58:

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
of the proper time for saying them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
sympathy for living beings."

I would say the third case above is the case for downvoting.
Downvoting an answer may be unendearing and disagreeable to the person answering.
If users can judge whether the correctness of an answer is factual and true, and if declaring this is beneficial for the answerer and other readers, then upvoting or downvoting is the proper time to express this, according to the way this site works. This is correct speech.
It's only incorrect speech if you know an answer to be correct, yet downvote it, or vice versa.

It's a well-known or frequently-expressed feeling on other SE sites -- a downvote feels like an insult, and a downvote without a comment seems rude and unhelpful.
Even so, in spite of the fact that users may not like it, SE allows it -- people can downvote, and aren't required to comment.
I recommend you comment -- if you can be friendly, and with a comment maybe phrased as a question or as constructive criticism suggestion -- especially with a new user, who might be sensitive to the community's reaction to their post.
I might also recommend that you don't comment in any of the following scenarios (if a comment is no better than or worse than no comment):

If the comment isn't informative, for example:

I"m downvoting this answer because of your view about X, which is wrong I tell you.

If it's not new information:

As I've told you 50 times already, I disagree with your view about X

If experience tells you that commenting on this particular person's answer usually leads to more arguments and "division" than not commenting

I agree it may be perceived as harsh.
As for whether it breaks a precept, is immoral, I think that depends.
Canonically the Buddha would have "a sense of the proper time" for saying "things that are factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others" -- which most people don't necessarily.
But the Buddha might also sometimes not correct -- or stop correcting -- mistakes:

Was the Buddha harsh?
Why does the Buddha, in the Pali Canon, periodically engage in harsh speech?

I personally avoid downvoting and harsh comments unless it is extremely necessary because it hurts the sentiments of poster and vilifies the atmosphere.
Buddha criticised many times but it was out of compassion. Those who try to be emotionless while judging have wrongly interpreted the teachings. The point is to be as considerate as possible while judging a human being... there is no substitute for a sincere compassion.

I doubt we’ll find a sutra reference that speaks about downvoting answers, so I’ll just relate a personal experience here. Early on, there was a person that downvoted seemingly every one of my answers for a period of time, and I found that very divisive, especially because his comments were not helpful, other than to let me know that it was he that was doing it. That kind of downvoting, in my opinion, does not conform to right speech. But this was contextual. If an answer misrepresents Buddhism in general, or is based on something else entirely, then downvoting that probably does at least conform to defending the Dharma, if not also being right speech.

there is a sutta reference

A downvote is meant to mean, "This answer is not useful". So someone might downvote an answer not just for being wrong but for being too short, difficult to understand, or even unreferenced or something like that. So there's more than one reason to downvote (which is why a comment to explain the downvote can be helpful too, "helpful" meaning that it might help the author see how to improve the answer), equally though there are (as you said) comments that don't seem to be helpful.

These are concerning public dhamma discourse and what is abusive circumstance

There Venerable Sāriputta addressed the mendicants:
“That is possible.”
When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “This is not possible,
Reverend Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”
But for a second … and a third time Sāriputta repeated his statement.
And for a third time, Udāyī said to him, “This is not possible,
Reverend Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”
Then Venerable Sāriputta thought, “Venerable Udāyī disagrees with me
three times, and not one mendicant agrees with me. Why don’t I go to
see the Buddha?”
Then Sāriputta went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and
said to the mendicants:
That is possible.”
When he said this, Udāyī said to him, “This is not possible, Reverend
Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”
But for a second … and a third time Sāriputta repeated his statement.
And for a third time, Udāyī said to him, “This is not possible,
Reverend Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”
Then Venerable Sāriputta thought, “Even in front of the Buddha
Venerable Udāyī disagrees with me three times, and not one mendicant
agrees with me. I’d better stay silent.” Then Sāriputta fell silent.
Then the Buddha said to Venerable Udāyī, “But Udāyī, do you believe in
a mind-made body?”
“For those gods, sir, who are formless, made of perception.”
“Udāyī, what has an incompetent fool like you got to say? How on earth
could you imagine you’ve got something worth saying!”
Then the Buddha said to Venerable Ānanda, “Ānanda! There’s a senior
mendicant being harassed, and you just watch it happening. Don’t you
have any compassion for a senior mendicant who is being harassed?”
https://suttacentral.net/an5.166/en/sujato

Downvoting, pestering, contradicting and annoying the righteous is like that. It is wrong action.

"The practice of Dhamma, [1] the practice of continence, [2] mastery of this is said to be best if a person has gone forth from home to the homeless life. But if he is garrulous and, like a brute, delights in hurting others, his life is evil and his impurity increases.
"A quarrelsome bhikkhu shrouded by delusion, does not comprehend the Dhamma taught by the Awakened One when it is revealed. Annoying those practiced in meditation, being led by ignorance, he is not aware that his defiled path leads to Niraya-hell. Falling headlong, passing from womb to womb, from darkness to (greater) darkness, such a bhikkhu undergoes suffering hereafter for certain.
"As a cesspool filled over a number of years is difficult to clean, similarly, whoever is full of impurity is difficult to make pure. Whoever you know to be such, bhikkhus, bent on worldliness, having wrong desires, wrong thoughts, wrong behavior and resort, being completely united avoid him, sweep him out like dirt, remove him like rubbish. Winnow like chaff the non-recluses. Having ejected those of wrong desires, of wrong behavior and resort, be pure and mindful, dwelling with those who are pure. Being united and prudent you will make an end to suffering." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.06.irel.html

These are some of the harshest reprimands in the sutta.

Yes it is. It's hardly to assume that any here isn't lead by unskilful mind using it and what ever system is build to serve common people successfully requires to make use of greed, aversion and ignorance. Well, and people here are foremost devoted and feel obligated to serve Mara. At least lazyness to write, and fear to get rebuked or different punished by system-servers, will lead one to make use of it either and so, in best common way, mixed kamma will be always the peak of skillful use of vote.
At least, to do not fall into other foolish views, it's totally not generally that dispraise and rebuke is wrong speech, but leads even to heaven if right and proper investigated, but as for the ordinary person, not arrived at the Dhamma, naturally corrupt, either praise, blame and equanimity will be in 95% of cases akusala.
"Dhammo have rakkhati dammacāriṁ"
Hard would it be, if even searching for, to appear in good companionship...
(and sure, one is free to up- downvote here, or confused just walk on, or gain conviction by catching proper attention, watching foremost the frames of reference)

Of these four persons, Potaliya, he who speaks both in dispraise of
what deserves dispraise seasonably saying what is a fact and true and
in praise of what is praiseworthy, saying seasonably what is a fact
and true - he is the most admirable and rare.
AN 4.100

I do not think downvoting is harsh speech.  This is a Q&A platform that individual should allow to post their opinion.
With good intention and no harsh remarks, downvoting could be a wake up call to the question posted, improving the quality of the future questions.
Use it right, it is a good feature to have!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How, if at all, does karma exist in the form and formless realms?
How, if at all, does karma exist in the form and formless realms?
Obviously, as humans in the desire realm, we can suffer misfortune, etc., due to our karma. But what about events in these other realms, either when in absorption or reborn there?
Is being reborn there just one constant bliss?

the downvote i assume was Dhammadhatu due to his attempt at denouncing the mahayana (which incidentally is v bad karma). unnecessary

Would you prefer to make this a specifically-Mahayana question, inviting only answers based on Mahayana doctrine?

the 'desire realm' also appears in the abhidamma i believe @ChrisW

Downvotes are anonymous and so it is probably not helpful to speculate about who did what or for what purpose

Taking a Theravada view, the immaterial realms - what you call formless - occur when a practitioner dies whilst dwelling in one of the four arupa ayatanas:

The dimension of the perception of space
The dimensions of the perception boundless consciousness
The dimensions of the perception of nothingness
The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception

Because these states still contain figments of conditionality, after death the mind (citta) gravitates to those figments thus perpetuating the continuation of that respective consciousness. As I currently understand, the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is considered to be at the very prelude to the finality of reality in the grand scheme of dhamma: the figments of consciousness that exist there are too tenuous to cause any major form-based re-becoming disturbances. The task here is traversing the pleasure of being relinquished from those form-based consciousnesses.
I have a long held a contention about the commonly held view in Theravada concerning rupa jhana and arupa ayatanas. The contention concerns the progressive models from jhana to ayatana that are often touted. In my view they are very distinct and either set doesn't necessarily inform the other set.
Back to the question: what we could say is that the practitioner, working in the sensuous domain, having previously developed his mind in accordance with dhamma, and having passed away, now finds himself dwelling in some heightened pleasurable state; one of the four arupa ayatanas. This could be said to have happened because the cause of that final state was due to the practice: due to this karma the practitioner traversed from the form state to the formless.

yeah i would've naively equated the rebirth (and perhaps its style and duration) to karma. obvious and answerable addendum is whether e.g. formless beings can suffer in any sense (except from conditioning itself)

They suffer as their 'state' exhausts its upkeep similar to how humans, delirious with happiness, and with that happiness coming to an end, they lament and suffer. Better to find real-world observations than create imaginary beings somewhere in the cosmos.

i asked about meditative absorptions also! what about them, do meditators experience e.g. leg pain in trance states?

is that due to karma? etc., no need to be dismissive of someone who thinks that Buddhist cosmology has meaning

It has meaning, but a meaning that is best applied within the conventions of here-and-now practice. From my experience the perception of pain changes not just on the cushion, but in daily life. This can only happen if you are fully conscious and not emerged in a trance state. If it seems like you're in a trance, then that sounds like torpor.

The Buddha never called the "human realm" the "desire realm". The Buddha described the "human realm" as follows:

SN 56.61 The beings born (paccājāyanti) as humans (manussesu) are
few, while those not born as humans are many. Why is that? It is
because they have not seen the four noble truths.
AN 6.39 Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be
evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus,
from actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an
animal birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.
SN 56.47 Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface
once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single
hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain
the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no
conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome
activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual
devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because,
bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The
noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the
cessation of suffering.

Kamma obviously can exist in the form and formless realms, because these realms can be a type of becoming caused by craving, as follows:

SN 12.2 And what is becoming? These three are becomings: sensual
becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming. This is called becoming.
AN 3.76 "Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property,
would sensuality-becoming be discerned?”
“No, lord.”
“If there were no kamma ripening in the form-property, would
form-becoming be discerned?”
“No, lord.”
“If there were no kamma ripening in the formless-property, would
formless-becoming be discerned?”
“No, lord.”

Naturally, the bliss of the form & formless realms is impermanent, as follows:

AN 4.123 Again, there is the case where an individual, with the
stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the
second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of
awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal
assurance. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through
that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling
away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with
the Abhassara[1] devas.[2] The Abhassara devas, monks, have a
life-span of two eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there,
having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the
animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the
Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of
those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is
the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor,
between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated
run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.

MN 111 Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of
the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] 'There is nothing,'
Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of nothingness. Whatever
qualities there are in the dimension of nothingness — the perception
of the dimension of nothingness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling,
perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence,
mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after
another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to
him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not
having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained
unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent,
detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He
discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there
really was for him.

hey, sorry i think i'm being a bit obnoxious to you... there are early buddhists who only followed the sutta pitaka, but to say that only these buddhists got it looks like a deformation of what is a living tradition called "buddhism".

buddhism is "fixed law" (AN 3.136; SN 12.20) and not "living/evolving"

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


text:
Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only really hurting ourselves?
Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only really hurting ourselves?
At least in everyday senses of suffering.
Perhaps not including sickness, old age, and death (these seem like counter examples).
But when we suffer from everyday pangs of frustration, due to e.g. frustration with our visual appearance, or lack of wealth (these are just examples).
Thanks for your contribution: looking for the limits of what is and is not our own fault.

Can you refine the question to give a definition of what you mean by "hurting ourselves" and under what circumstances? Maybe you can give an illustrative example or an allegory? Try and come up with a counterexample and explain why it still fails and you can still "gloss" karma this way?

Are you asking if we can interpret karma as a form of self-harm? If so that might be a better title, or at least some variation of that, which might draw in more interest.

Not to claim Alan Watts to be a great Buddhist scholar, but he glossed karma as "What you do, happens to you."  Phrasing it in this neutral way, rather than just talking of hurt, gave him great leeway in using it as a teaching tool.

can you define "ourselves"?

Frustration and suffering arise from unskillful intentions. That's bad kamma.

DN33:1.11.154: There are deeds that are dark with dark result.

Harmony and happiness arise from skillful intentions. That's good kamma.

DN33:1.11.155: There are deeds that are bright with bright result.

More commonly, the two are mixed and muddied.

DN33:1.11.156: There
are deeds that are dark and bright with dark and bright result.

However, the truly skillful do not accumulate kamma. They let go of kamma instead of piling it up.

DN33:1.11.157: There are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the end of deeds.

Looking for the limit of faults is chasing the conditioned, the impermanent and the unsatisfactory.
Instead, look for the limitless in love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.

Can you quote some evidence to support "However, the truly skillful do not accumulate kamma. They let go of kamma instead of piling it up"?

Indeed. One place is AN6.57:  And how does someone ... give rise to extinguishment, which is neither dark nor bright?
The "letting go of kamma" is from "kammakkhayāya" in DN33.

What is karma ?
Under ignorance karma is done by me but for enlightened beings all karma happens with end result as dukha or suffering...
karma under ignorance bears fruits of good and bad for me... but for enlightened beings all karma results in dukha or suffering...
Does all karma results in hurting ourselves?
Invalid question.,. Hurting happens but whose hurt is it anyway ? We can’t say... what happens is dukha or suffering.,, which can removed by giving up craving to enjoy feelings or attachments.., if we give up cravings for feelings or attachments ...the suffering disappears...,. Remember all feelings and attachments as not yours , as not me and not as myself...
What do you do with things not yours including karma?
You don’t care ..., no matter what happens you let it be as not yours or not me or not as myself...,
Essentially you don’t let whatever happens as due to you or due to your self or due to something which belongs to you ..
This is how you escape karma.,,

Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only
really hurting ourselves?

If the mind has right samadhi (which includes hyper sensitiveness), the mind can realize all bad kamma (be it mental, verbal or physical) is hurting oneself; because the mind can directly feel the bad vibrations of its nasty intentions.
However, for those without right samadhi, such as the common puthujjana (worldling), they must see how bad kamma hurts others.

But when we suffer from everyday pangs of frustration, due to e.g.
frustration with our visual appearance, or lack of wealth (these are
just examples).

The Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka (at SN 37.30) taught a woman that lacks beautiful visual appearance & wealth will still be accepted by others if she has ethical behaviour (morality). If we have faith in the Buddha of the Sutta Pitaka, we will be confident the most important thing is our ethical behaviour. For example, the Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka taught a woman, despite her genetic physical appearance, will look ugly & deformed when she is angry.

Here, Mallikā, a certain woman, is angry, often irritable. Even over a
trivial remark, she is cross (abhisajjati), shaken, vexed, stubborn,
and shows her temper (byāpajjati), anger and sulkiness. She is not a
giver of food, drinks, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments,
beddings, dwelling or lightings, to recluses or brahmins. Furthermore,
she is jealous in her heart; jealous of others‟ receiving gains,
honour, respect, esteem, homage and worship; she is vengeful and holds
grudges. If she falls away (cutā) and returns (āgacchati) to such a
state, wherever she comes forth (paccājāyati), she is ugly, deformed, of
very mean appearance and she is poor, having few things, of little
wealth and little influence.
AN 4.197

AN 4.197 clearly shows how angry people hurt themselves.


text:
AN 4.197 - do the Pali words "āgacchati" and "paccājāyati" mean "reborn"?
AN 4.197 has been translated as:

Here, Mallikā, a certain woman, is angry, often irritable. Even over a
trivial remark, she is cross (abhisajjati), shaken, vexed, stubborn,
and shows her temper (byāpajjati), anger and sulkiness. She is not a
giver of food, drinks, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments,
beddings, dwelling or lightings, to recluses or brahmins. Furthermore,
she is jealous in her heart; jealous of others‟ receiving gains,
honour, respect, esteem, homage and worship; she is vengeful and holds
grudges. If she falls away (cutā) and returns (āgacchati) to such a
state, wherever she is reborn (paccājāyati), she is ugly, deformed, of
very mean appearance and she is poor, having few things, of little
wealth and little influence.

AN 7.64 also contains the word "āgacchati" and says:

An irritable person, overcome and overwhelmed by anger, is ugly, even
though they’re nicely bathed and anointed, with hair and beard dressed
and wearing white clothes. This is the first thing that pleases and
assists an enemy which comes upon (āgacchati) an irritable woman or
man. Because an enemy doesn’t like to have a beautiful enemy.
When a person is irritable, overcome and overwhelmed by anger, the
rulers seize the legitimate wealth they’ve earned by their efforts,
built up with their own hands, gathered by the sweat of their brow. An
angry person is ugly and sleeps poorly. Gaining a profit, he turns it
into a loss, having done damage with word & deed. A person overwhelmed
with anger destroys his wealth. Maddened with anger, he falls into
disgrace. Relatives, friends & colleagues avoid him. Anger brings
loss. Anger inflames the mind. He doesn’t realize that his danger is
born (jāta) from within. Doing these deeds that kill beings and do
violence to himself, the angry person doesn’t realize that he’s
ruined. The snare of death (maccupāso) in the form of anger lies
hidden in the heart. You should cut it out by self-control, by wisdom,
energy and right ideas.

AN 8.29 has been translated as follows:

Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is
taught...but a person has been reborn (upapannā) in hell. This is the
first inopportune moment that is not the right occasion for living the
spiritual life.
Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is
taught...but a person has been reborn (upapannā) in the animal realm.
This is the second inopportune moment...
Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is
taught...but a person has been reborn (upapannā) in the sphere of
afflicted spirits. This is the third inopportune...
Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is
taught...but a person has been reborn (upapannā) in certain order of
long-lived devas. This is the fourth inopportune…
Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is
taught...but a person has been reborn (paccājāto) in the outlying
provinces among the uncouth foreigners, a place to which bhikkhus,
bhikkhunīs, male lay followers and female lay followers do not travel.
This is the fifth inopportune moment that is not the right occasion
for living the spiritual life …
Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is
taught...but a person has been reborn (paccājāto) in the central
provinces, but he holds wrong view and has a distorted perspective...
there is no fruit or result of good and bad actions… This is the sixth
inopportune..
Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is
taught...but a person has been reborn (paccājāto) in the central
provinces, but he is unwise, stupid, obtuse, unable to understand the
meaning of what has been well stated and badly stated. This is the
seventh...
Here, a Tathāgata has not arisen in the world...and enlightenment is
not taught...but a person has been reborn (paccājāto) in the central
provinces, and he is wise, intelligent, astute, able to understand the
meaning of what has been well stated and badly stated. This is the
eighth …
There is, bhikkhus, one unique opportune moment that is the right
occasion for living the spiritual life. What is it? Here, a Tathāgata
has arisen in the world... and enlightenment is taught as proclaimed
by a Fortunate One. And a person has been reborn (paccājāto) in the
central provinces, and he is wise, intelligent, astute, able to
understand the meaning of what has been well stated and badly stated.

Questions:

Why are two different words used for "reborn" in AN 8.29?

What is the path of action (kamma) leading to "rebirth" in a geographical region?

When compared to AN 7.64 and AN 8.29, what distinguishes AN 4.197 so AN 4.197 is about "rebirth"?

Note: the words "paccājāyati" (verb) and "paccājāto" (past particle) are the same.

do the Pali words “āgacchati” and “paccājāyati” mean “reborn”?
The PTS dictionary translates "paccājāyati" as "reborn". Apparently that's the prefix Pati -- which has many meanings (or usages), including "a second time"; and Jayati which is translated "to be born, to be produced, to arise, to be reborn".
Jati is one of the 12 nidanas, see SN 12.2.
The translation is consistent with the previous phrase, as there are two definitions (or shades of meaning) for "cuta":

moved or fallen (from one ’s place); (who has) fallen away; who has abandoned (the holy life)
(who has) fallen from one state of existence (to another); who has died; ceased, come to an end

If you wanted to say "No it's not that, instead it's talking about moment-to-moment becoming", then perhaps that's a false dichotomy, i.e. that it may mean both -- see for example What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth?
I think the topic is pretty close to being a thicket. But I suppose it isn't controversial, that it does or may refer to successive moments in (conventionally) "one person's life".
I think the point of the sutta isn't to teach that rebirth and/or successive states of existence exist -- what it does is warn Queen Mallikā against (unfortunate consequences of) anger and ungenerosity. It also redirects her rather conceited or vain question, to topics of inner mind (non-anger) and important social relations.
Why are two different words used for "reborn" in AN 8.29
It's a similar word (i.e. based on Jati) with a different prefix -- Upa instead of Pati.
A convenient summary of Pati is here, showing meanings including "for a second time" and "in contrast to".
Conversely perhaps "Upa" defined here means under or above.
So "upapannā" could mean "entering or being [re]born in a higher or lower realm for the first time", whereas "paccājāto" is about being born "again" in the human realm.

the PTS dictionary is obviously interpretative and has no real credibility. since "rebirth" is "self-view", obviously the answer above is a "thicket".

upapannā has no relationship to jati. the root of upapannā is "pad" and the root of jati is "jan". is it possible to down vote this answer for every error? thanks

the prefix "pati" or "pacca" generally means "opposite", such as in "patipuggala", which means "rival" or "comparison". it appears quite obvious from its use in the suttas the term "paccājāyati" means "comparative birth/status", such as living in the central lands compared to living in the border regions. therefore, when the angry woman in the Mallikā Sutta returns to the human (virtuous) sphere after her outbursts of anger, she has a bad reputation, "compared to" other women in her human circle of associates. while she is in the human realm, her "humanity" does not compare to others

I said it's based on Jati because https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/upapanna says that it's the "pp. of upapajjati" (quoting the PTS dictionary again). I see on page 93 of http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/paligram.pdf that "to be born" is an irregular verb, but I haven't found a table of how to conjugate it (to confirm or deny whether it can plausibly conjugate to upapanna). Conversely page 133 of https://ia800105.us.archive.org/26/items/MyPaliCourse/Easy%20Intro%20Pali.pdf suggests it means "arisen" and that its derivation is "p.p. of u + pada, to go".

I suppose translators (like anyone understanding a natural language) infer the "meaning" of a word from its context, and perhaps from commentary (explanation), with etymology being unclear sometimes. The PTS dictionary here does say that someone else explained "not quite to the point" that it's rooted in "gata" i.e. gone. Personally I find "born in" and "gone to" pretty similar in meaning, close enough that it doesn't matter, not worth worry about which is right -- just accept both or either.


text:
What is 'discriminating wisdom' in the early Buddhist texts?
I have been discussing online whether there is a counterpart to the Greek idea of 'nous' (intellect) in the early Buddhist texts. The discussion was about discriminating between sensory experience and rational thought. I was arguing that there is a clear distinction between sensory and rational faculties in Greek philosophy. Then someone said, what about in Buddhism, where 'manas' is given as one of the six sense gates? Doesn't this mean that Buddhism equates manas and sensory faculties?
I said, no, because there is the faculty that 'discerns the dharma' which is not a sensory faculty but discriminative wisdom. The word that came to mind was the Sanskrit 'viveka', for which I found the definition 'Sense of discrimination; wisdom; discrimination between the real and the unreal, between the self and the non-self, between the permanent and the impermanent; discriminative inquiry; right intuitive discrimination; ever present discrimination between the transient and the permanent.'
However, I'm not aware of much discussion of this in the texts. I'm wondering if there's any discussion in abhidharma texts of this distinction and the faculty of discriminative wisdom?

From MN 137 below, we read about the six sense media, one of which is the intellect or mind medium which senses ideas and thoughts.
From MN 137 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

"'The six internal sense-media should be known': thus was it said. And
in reference to what was it said? The eye-medium, the ear-medium, the
nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the
intellect-medium. 'The six internal sense-media should be known':
thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"'The six external sense-media should be known': thus was it said. And
in reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium,
the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile-sensation-medium,
the idea-medium. 'The six external sense-media should be known': thus was it said. And in reference to thus was it said.

It further talks about eighteen explorations of the intellect, basically examining the six sensations for basis of pleasure, pain and neutrality. This includes the idea or thought sensations sensed by the intellect.

"'The eighteen explorations for the intellect should be known': thus
was it said. And in reference to what was it said? Seeing a form via
the eye, one explores a form that can act as the basis for happiness,
one explores a form that can act as the basis for unhappiness, one
explores a form that can act as the basis for equanimity. Hearing a
sound via the ear ... Smelling an aroma via the nose ... Tasting a
flavor via the tongue ... Feeling a tactile sensation via the body ...
Cognizing an idea via the intellect, one explores an idea that can act as the basis for happiness, one explores an idea that can act as
the basis for unhappiness, one explores an idea that can act as the
basis for equanimity. Thus there are six happiness-explorations, six
distress-explorations, and six equanimity-explorations. The eighteen
explorations for the intellect should be known': thus was it said. And
in reference to this was it said.

Discussing "discrimination" specifically, there's AN 5.95 quoted below:
From AN 5.95 (translated by K. Nizamis):

When endowed with five qualities, monks, in no long time a monk
penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable. Which five?
Here, monks, a
monk is one who has attained discrimination of meanings, is one who
has attained discrimination of principles, is one who as attained
discrimination of language, is one who has attained discrimination of
the illuminating qualities (of knowledge), and he reflects upon the
mind as liberated.
When endowed with these five qualities, monks, a
monk in no long time penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable.

The word "discrimination" here is paṭisambhidā. The translator's commentary states as follows. There are more commentaries on other terms in the link to the sutta.

Paṭisambhidā: formed from paṭi- + saṃ- + bhid, where paṭi + saṃ should probably be understood as 'back together', and the verbal root bhid means 'to break, split, sever'. Rhys Davids and Stede
propose that a literal rendering would be "resolving continuous
breaking up", and gloss this as 'analysis, analytic insight,
discriminating knowledge'; moreover, they associate it with the idea
of 'logical analysis' (Pali-English Dictionary, p. 400.2). Bhikkhu
Nyanatiloka similarly renders the term as 'analytical knowledge', but
also as 'discrimination' (Buddhist Dictionary, p. 137). Bhikkhu
Ñāṇamoli voices a divergent view in a note to his translation of in
Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga, XIV.8, where he renders paṭisambhidā as
'discrimination':

Paṭisambhidā is usually rendered by 'analysis'... But the Tipiṭaka explanations of the four paṭisambhidā suggest no emphasis on analysis
rather than synthesis... 'Discrimination' has been chosen for
paṭisambhidā because, while it has the sense of 'division', it does
not imply an opposite process as 'analysis' does. Also it may be
questioned whether the four are well described as 'entirely logical':
'entirely epistemological' might perhaps be both less rigid and
nearer; for they seem to cover four interlocking fields, namely:
meanings of statements and effects of causes (etc.), statements of
meanings and causes of effects (etc.), language as restricted to
etymological rules of verbal expression, and clarity (or perspicuous
inspiration) in marshalling the other three. (The Path of
Purification, 5th ed., 1991, p. 804, n. 4)

In this translation, I have decided to follow Ñāṇamoli's rendering of
the term. Even so, 'discrimination' does not so clearly capture the
double sense of both 'taking apart' ('analysis') and 'combining
together' ('synthesis') that seems to be suggested by paṭisambhidā.
One kind of epistemological process which involves both of these
activities is 'classification', in which various things, even within a
given class or group (e.g., attha, 'meaning, result', dhamma,
'principle, cause', nirutti, 'language, means of expression'), are
divided and grouped according to their peculiar differences and
similarities with respect to one another. So, while each of the
paṭisambhidā is itself a classification of a kind of knowledge, it is
also possible that each one is also understood to be a kind of ability
to 'classify' correctly the elements belonging to the kind of
knowledge that falls into its scope.
In Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa (PTS Vism 438), presents a list of what
he considers to be twelve different kinds of paññā ('understanding',
'wisdom'); the set of catasso paṭisambhidā, 'four discriminations', is
the twelfth of these. He goes on to give an extensive discussion of
them (XIV.21-31, PTS Vism 440-443), which, although of interest, is
very much influenced by the Abhidhamma interpretation of the term:
Buddhaghosa begins by citing the definition of the Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga
(Vibh 293), and then proceeds to follow the subsequent Vibhaṅga
discussion (XIV.24, Vism 441, citing Vibh 293-295). If Buddhaghosa was
indeed the author of the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (see note 8 below for
details), then his Abhidhamma-based account of the four paṭisambhidā
may well diverge from the original meaning of the term in the period
in which the Suttas evolved and were committed to memory. For the same
reasons, this is very probably also the case for many commentarial
interpretations of earlier Sutta concepts.

Just for comparison, Ven. Sujato's translation of AN 5.95 reads:

“Mendicants, a mendicant who has five things will soon penetrate the
unshakable.
“Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samannāgato bhikkhu nacirasseva akuppaṁ paṭivijjhati.
What five?
Katamehi pañcahi?
It’s when a mendicant has attained the textual analysis of meaning,
text, terminology, and eloquence, and they review the extent of their
mind’s freedom.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu atthapaṭisambhidāpatto hoti, dhammapaṭisambhidāpatto hoti, niruttipaṭisambhidāpatto hoti,
paṭibhānapaṭisambhidāpatto hoti, yathāvimuttaṁ cittaṁ paccavekkhati. A
mendicant who has these five things will soon penetrate the
unshakable.” Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahi dhammehi samannāgato
bhikkhu nacirasseva akuppaṁ paṭivijjhatī”ti.

"The word "discrimination" here is paṭisambhidā."

That is just the word I was looking for, thank you, I had never encountered this word or passage previously.

I said, no, because there is the faculty that 'discerns the dharma' which is not a sensory faculty but discriminative wisdom.

The above is plainly wrong because the mano faculty is a sensory faculty that senses the mind's feelings, thoughts, emotions, etc, which many never discern the Dhamma; even though it also discerns the Dhamma when fit to.

I was arguing that there is a clear distinction between sensory and rational faculties in Greek philosophy.

If the above is true, it is not Buddhist because the type of "rationality" or "wisdom" Buddhism seeks to develop is based on direct sensory perception/cognition.

Then someone said, what about in Buddhism, where 'manas' is given as one of the six sense gates? Doesn't this mean that Buddhism equates manas and sensory faculties?

Yes. Manas is a sense faculty (per MN 148) as well as the creator of intentions (per Dhp 1). The word 'mana/mano/manas' is used in this two fold sense because what the mind senses forms the basis of its intentional behaviour.

In the sutta the perception of thought is included in the same classification as other sensory perception and they are all thought of as occuring due to 'contact'. That which is thought of in that way is said to make contact associated with it's occurence on the account of which it is felt & otherwise experienced.
In the sutta that which we call 'thinking' is essentially spoken of as something cognized, perceived, conceived & felt.
The word close to 'intellect' in the sutta is also called 'mind' and  'consciousness' - citta-mano-vinnana
It is spoken of as that which cognizes, as that which is the forerunner and the maker. It is thought of as implicated in all 6 classes of contact but that not as the same element because it is thought of as 'changing as it arises'.
This element of consciousness is spoken of as 'to be fully understood' whilst 'discernment/wisdom' as power & faculty is to be developed.


text:
Is the role of rogyapas in sky burials considered unclean by Tibetan Buddhists?
I just came across a Reddit comment referencing the Human Planet documentary about sky burials, in which there was an implication by the narrator that the rogyapa (body-breaker) performing the ritual must be a non-Buddhist (around 2:40). The Reddit comment states that breaking the body apart is a form of defilement, thus not appropriate for monks. Is this true, and is there any basis in Buddhist literature supporting such view?

Are you asking, in specifically-Tibetan Buddhist literature, or in any Buddhist literature?

@ChrisW I assumed Tibetian Buddhist literature would explain the phenomenon best, but I maybe biased here. Input from any tradition would be welcome and appreciated.

Quoting from the Pali texts (not Tibetan literature)...
The first thing I notice is in the Mahāparinibbānasutta (DN 16):

Then Anuruddha said to Ānanda, “Go, Ānanda, into Kusinārā and inform the Mallas: ‘Vāseṭṭhas, the Buddha has become fully extinguished. Please come at your convenience.’”

Or I've seen this translation:

At that time the Mallas of Kusinara had gathered in the council hall to consider that very matter. And the Venerable Ananda approached them and announced: "The Blessed One, Vasetthas, has passed away. Do now as seems fitting to you."

In summary it's the responsibility of the local lay society.
Looking into the Vinaya I find this:

Funerals
Unlike some of the other early Vinayas, the Pali Vinaya contains no rules on how to conduct the funeral of a dead bhikkhu or novice. Writers have speculated as to why this is so, but the speculation tends to say more about the writers than about the Vinaya. The practical upshot is that the Community (or the bhikkhu’s friends, relatives, etc.) may dispose of his body as they see fit in line with local custom and law. DN 16 states that an arahant, after death, deserves to have a stūpa built over his/her remains, but the Vinaya contains no rule to enforce this.
One issue that arises at present is the custom of willing one’s body to medical science. Because there is no rule that the bhikkhu’s body (as opposed to his belongings) belongs to the Community, if he has willed his body in this way his wishes may be honored.
Another issue arising at present is the cost of a funeral. In the Buddha’s time, funerals could cost nothing. The body would either be cremated, in which case wood was easy to find in the ubiquitous forest, or the body would be exposed in a charnel ground, which involved little effort and no expense. At present, with the high cost of funerals, the tradition in Thailand is a useful adaptation of the Vinaya’s rules. There, if no one else volunteers to sponsor a dead bhikkhu’s funeral, the Community itself is the sponsor, and the funds for the funeral come first from his belongings. Only if any of his light articles and requisites remain after the funeral are they divided among the Community’s members.

That doesn't say it's "considered unclean" -- but does continue the theme of its being a responsibility for lay-folk -- and perhaps in that way, "not appropriate for monks".
Also I do gather that in Tibetan society, a lot of the "manual labour" tasks were done by lay-people -- I think that's generally true of other Buddhist societies too, though apparently monks may do some forms of physical work (e.g. building or maintaining a monastery).
I get the impression that there were no "body-breakers" in the society associated with the Pali texts -- that corpses were taken intact to "charnel grounds" (Sivathika) and left there unbroken to decay.

Incidentally I'd normally associate the word "unclean" as referring to a Western understanding of the Indian caste system -- see Untouchability -- whose jobs tended to be literally/physically polluting e.g. emptying latrines.

Occupations
In the past, they were believed to be so impure that caste Hindus considered their presence to be polluting. The "impure status" was related to their historic hereditary occupations that caste Hindus considered to be "polluting" or debased, such as working with leather, disposing of dead animals, manual scavenging, or sanitation work.

I don't know if there was an equivalent practice in Tibetan society.
I guess that dismembering corpses might be unclean or polluting -- dangerous for medical reasons -- so if it were considered ritually or professionally unclean that might be part of the reason (though this is not exactly what you were asking for).

Thank you for the extremely detailed answer. I did some more digging and found this book by John Powers. The monks would help wash the corpse, and later the lama would also piercs the corpse's skull (still containing the brain) open, so I don't think there's any notion of 'unclean'/'defilement' associated. I'm still interested to see if there is any Buddhist rogyapa, but I can research that on my own. Have a nice day :)


text:
What are the things to do get large amount of merits?
I'm new to this forum.
What are the most merit receiving things in Buddhism?
I already know donating or charity is a good way to earn much merits.
What are the other ways to earn merits?
Thank you.

I think you'll find some good answers to your question already, in the topic that I linked to above.

It is a very important question. Accumulating merit.
If you can undo all your past wrong doings then that will accrue merit.
For example if you have lied in the past and now you have taken an oath to never lie again that brings merit.
If you have collected money by wrongful means and now if you decide to donate all your money then that brings merit.
If you have hurt someone and now you decide to help him by applying balm to his wounds both metaphorically and literally then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to be punished for your past misdeeds then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to self sacrifice for the benefit of mankind then that brings merit.
If you have decided to deeply love the ugliest creature on the planet then that brings merit.
If you have decided to look at all beings with deep love then that brings merit.
If you have decided to fulfil wishes of others then that brings merit.
If you have decided to surrender to Buddha or any other equally compassionate being then that brings merit.
If you have to decided to make others happy then that brings merit.
If you have decided to provide solutions to entangled beings then that brings merit.
If you have decided to face every situation with courage then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to follow the path of Truth then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to maintain integrity then that brings merit.


text:
Does karma have effects, only if they are done physically? Or also mentally?
I know Theravada Buddhism has 5 precepts:

killing other beings
stealing, or taking by force what is not given
no sexual relations other than your married soulmate
lying and incorrect speech
consuming intoxicating substances

These are physical actions and give bad karma.
What if I have negative thoughts in my mind? Would it have the same repercussions as physical actions, or would it be less severe?
Thank you.

This question is a duplicate. Please see the questions linked to this question. They already have answers to your question.

negative thoughts cause suffering & hindrances to your mind but, yes, their repercussions are incomparably less severe. For example, if you commit adultery, you could lose your job, your wife (or husband), family, your wealth. If you kill, you end up in prison.

thank you for clarification


text:
How do the concepts of anatta, rebirth and karma coexist together?
Although I have read quite a lot of books about Buddhism, almost all of them were meant for the Western layman so I consider myself to be a beginner compared to most of you here. I hope you can forgive me for possible inaccuracies or inconsistencies in my question. I'm hoping to get answers from Buddhists firmly rooted in the tradition, although of course everyone is most welcome to share their points of view.
I have problems coming to terms with the seeming paradox between reincarnation and anatta. How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self? When searching online most answers refer to all phenomena being interdependent, empty and transient, which is fine, but basically comes down to a sort of Lion King's Circle of Life analogy (beautiful as this still is).
But this explanation fails to point out why karma also matters in Buddhism in relation to rebirth. If you are born in an animal's body, you are generally considered to have less karma in stock than when you are born in a happy Buddhist household (or in the Pure Land). How do rebirth and karma rhyme with the concept of anatta?
I understand that in your present life you could benefit significantly from pursuing a virtuous life and following the Noble Eightfold Path, and it could have a minute positive change for the world after you're gone, but can you also benefit substantially from living virtuous in your next life after the demise of your current body? If so, how?
I really appreciate the Buddhist tradition, but the above concepts currently seem contradictory to me. I hope someone can show me the way out of my maze.

Hi FrommFrankl, I'd be happy to attempt to help you out of the maze :) But first, I have a question for you! Forget for a moment the idea of reincarnation (or rebirth) from life-to-life and instead concentrate on the situation in this very life and apply the following three concepts: anatta, rebirth (from moment-to-moment), and karma. In your mind, can they coexist together without contradiction?

@Yeshe Tenley - please give an answer because I'm intrigued myself! ;-)

If you see rebirth only from moment-to-moment I see they can coexist together. If you see rebirth as in being born according to one's karma or remembering past lives I currently don't see them coexisting together logically.

Hi FrommFrankl, I too would attempt to help you out of the maze in touching on all three of the concepts. I have not contributed to this forum in a long time, because I now interpret the dhamma in its third dimension, whereas everyone else in this forum sees dhamma in its second dimension. There is nothing wrong in their interpretation of the three concepts anatta, rebirth and kamma, but since you've found the above concepts  seem contradictory to you, I'll try to give you a hint of this other dimension. with metta......

There's also another topic here -- that question is similar, although without asking about karma as well explicitly. I also found this answer informative (like Yeshe Tenley's answer below).

Alas, the maze you spoke of is large and different people are stuck in different parts. That's why I asked,

"Forget for a moment the idea of reincarnation (or rebirth) from
life-to-life and instead concentrate on the situation in this very
life and apply the following three concepts: anatta, rebirth (from
moment-to-moment), and karma. In your mind, can they coexist together
without contradiction?"

to which you replied,

"If you see rebirth only from moment-to-moment I see they can coexist
together. If you see rebirth as in being born according to one's karma
or remembering past lives I currently don't see them coexisting
together logically."

Thanks! This helps to narrow down which part of the maze you are stuck in. I think your answer indicates that you believe there to be a material difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life. This is the root of your misconception.
To unravel this misconception, let's look at your questions in the context of rebirth from moment-to-moment.

"How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of
past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self?"

What's the big difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life? It is the death and break up of the body, yes? This tells me you are identifying the body as the self. That the body is somehow identified with or acts as a vessel for the soul/inherent-self that passes from moment-to-moment in this very life. That with the break up of the body at death you believe this soul/inherent-self is annihilated right along with the body. That having no more body the soul/self/atman is extinguished.
Believing such, you haven't truly dealt with the implications of anatta which says that no soul/self/atman can be found in the body or dependent upon the body. The truth is that no such soul/self/atman really exists. We perceive that it exists just like a magical illusion. This illusion continues on from moment-to-moment in this very life and it continues on from life-to-life to the very same extent and in the very same manner. If you believe that the illusion dies or is annihilated with the death and break up of the body, then you don't truly understand it to be an illusion at all! Rather, you are regarding the illusion as a real and genuine fact that has died with the break up of the body.
I would encourage you to think and meditate on anatta and rebirth from moment-to-moment and see if you can generate the same perception of a contradiction that you can so readily with rebirth from life-to-life. When you can perceive this seeming contradiction, then I propose you'll be that much closer to understanding the real meaning of anatta. It can be mind blowing :)

What exactly is rebirth? And what exactly is death?
Most people take rebirth to be the rebirth of oneself into a new life. If we zoom further into what this means, this is the continuation of the same consciousness that is aware of its surroundings and its thoughts into a new body with a new identity and new life. The same consciousness from birth wandered through life till death, then it continues in a new life after rebirth.
The Buddha did not accept this view in MN 38:

The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
long time.”

The Buddha taught consciousness to be dependently originated.
This is elaborated further in the same sutta:

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition
dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on
the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned
as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose
and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness
arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as
tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body
and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is
reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the
particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns
dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns
dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns
dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns
dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire
burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire
burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too,
consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on
which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and
forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises
dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as
mind-consciousness.

Please also see this answer in which Damith explained:

Think of a stream of water. When you look at a single point in the
stream, you see many water droplets appear, exist, and disappear. Take
a single droplet out of it which passed by that point. If you
consider the past, present, and future of that droplet, you'll see a
stream. In reality, it's not the same droplet nor another droplet you
see in the past, present, and future. Stream of consciousness is
analogous to this example.

So MN 38 is a rejection of consciousness as being the eternal unchanging self that moves from life to life. It's not a rejection of the continuity of the stream of consciousness that is conditioned and changing.
So, is there such a thing as rebirth? Yes. But what is it?
It's not the rebirth of oneself, but it's the rebirth of one's self - not one's soul, but one's mental idea of a self (the idea 'I am the thinker' of Snp 4.14). It's not the rebirth of the individual, but it's the rebirth of individuality.
In SN 15.3 (below), the Buddha looks at YOU (the mental idea of self) and tells YOU that YOU have been reborn so many times and grieved the death of so many loved ones (which are more mental ideas classified relative to the mental idea of the self - see this question on papanca), that the volume of tears shed by YOU (the self) is more than the volume of water in all the oceans of the world combined. Also, a beginning to this samsara is inconstruable.
Every time this mental idea of a self is reborn, the situation of rebirth is based on past karma but fueled by craving and clinging. Thoughts, words and actions motivated by clinging and burning with passion, aversion and delusion, will result in negative repercussions, and vice versa. From moment to moment, rebirth of the mental idea of the self is fueled by craving, but the situation of rebirth is based on karma.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother...
father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death
of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to
relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to
disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease
while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying &
weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated
from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great
oceans.

What is death? Of course, it is also the death of YOU, a self identity.
Then what is Parinibbana?
Well, there is such a thing as clinging aggregates. According to this answer, for a living arahant, when ignorance is uprooted, this breaks dependent origination, that ends craving, clinging and suffering. In the chain of dependent origination, clinging aggregates would also cease.
The living arahant according to Iti 44, attained nibbana with fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa), meaning the non-clinging aggregates are still functioning like glowing embers, although the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased.
Parinibbana is when the non-clinging aggregates stop functioning. This is nibbana without fuel remaining (anupadisesa) according to Iti 44.
What is difference between parinibbana and any other death? In the former, the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased. In the latter, the fires of passion, aversion and delusion keeps burning, the (mental idea of a) self is reborn and suffering continues.
A change of perspective is needed i.e. rebirth, birth, death, and parinibbana should not be linked to any permanent consciousness or identity. The first noble truth is that there is suffering. It's not there is my suffering or your suffering but simply there is suffering. This also relates to anatta (not self).
Also, think about the core teaching, sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self. There is no permanent consciousness or identity or individuality or self in all phenomena.

The Dhamma that the Buddha elucidated operate at 3 dimensions or 3 circles. If one fully comprehends all three levels, then one sees the PATH in a whole new light. There is no need to touch on the second dimension as everyone of you are well-versed with it. But in this third dimension, the word “Anatta” takes on a very different meaning.
When one clings to desires born in the mind and attempts to maintain such desires perpetually, such objects will be deep seated in the mind leading to rebirth that comes with afflictions and despair. This is ‘anatta’. “Anatta” means despair or bewilderment and not ‘anatma / not-self’ as in the second dimension. “Anatta” as despair or bewilderment because one is helpless in this rebirth process.
One who considers what has been grasped with raga (desirability/ craving), dvesha (mental discord) and moha (comparisons between the earlier two) as wholesome tumbles in despair and continues with birth after birth in an infinite existence while undergoing unwholesome conditions. Here, ‘anatta’ means one goes adrift like a disoriented person without knowing the correct pathway.
All religions believe in a permanent state of Heaven. According to Buddha there is no permanency in any existences, be it heaven or hell or any of the 31 planes of existence. This is where the concept of Karma gets explained. During one’s lifetime, if one performs immoral and evil deeds, such individuals will be born in future in lower planes of existence, as they do not possess the needed karma energy to enjoy life. They have a huge burden of karma that prevents them from enjoying all the good things in life.
Karma and rebirth are always interconnected as whether you do good karma or bad karma, in both these cases attaining Nibbana will be very much delayed. It is, if that person does not know how to translate good karma into ‘kusala dhamma’, but that's another story.

The description, "helpless in this rebirth process", sounds like what's called Saṃsāra.

This is another meaning to “Anatta” that I give here. It is seeing Dhamma in a new light. In this “Anatta” means one goes adrift like a disoriented person without knowing the correct pathway. Sabbe dhamma anatta – all phenomena are anatta….  these outcomes are unworthy or meaningless to bring under one’s control since everything transforms inevitably.
Samsara means (sam= raga, dvesha and moha;  sara= worthy or beneficial). These three tendencies collectively known as ‘kilesa’ bind an individual or a being tenaciously to samsāra.

Venerable Thanissaro already has given a definitive answer for this question drawn from the Canon

27. If there’s no self, what gets reborn?
The Buddha never said that there is no self. He never said that there
is a self. The whole question of whether or not the self exists was
one he put aside.
There’s a common misconception that the Buddha started with the idea
that there was no self and, in the context of no self, taught the
doctrine of kamma, which makes no sense: If there’s no self, nobody
does the kamma and nobody receives the results, so actions and their
results wouldn’t matter, because there’s no one choosing to act, and
no one to suffer the results. But that’s putting the context
backwards. Actually, the Buddha started with the reality of kamma, and
then viewed ideas of “self” and “not-self” as types of kamma within
that context. This means that he focused on seeing the way we define
our sense of self as an action. Then the question becomes, when is the
act of identifying things as your self a skillful action, and when is
it not? When is the act of identifying things as not-self a skillful
action, and when is it not? When a healthy sense of self is needed to
be responsible, self-reliant, and heedful of the future, it’s a
skillful action. When the perception of not-self helps you not to
identify with desires that would lead to harm, it’s a skillful action.
In other words, both “self” and “not-self” are strategies for
achieving happiness. They should be used—and mastered—as needed for
the sake of true happiness, and abandoned when no longer needed. So
instead of getting involved in the tangle of trying to define what a
self is and whether it exists, the Buddha advised treating “self” and
“not-self” as processes to be mastered, as tools.
Similarly with rebirth: He avoided talking about what gets reborn and
instead focused on how it happens, as a process. Because the process
is a type of kamma, it’s something you’re responsible for, and it’s
also a skill you can master: either with relative skill, reaching a
comfortable rebirth, or with consummate skill, learning how not to be
reborn at all.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/KarmaQ&A/Section0005.html

Buddha taught a middle way between annihilationism & eternalism, and taught that either view is seriously problematic. The first corresponds to simple materialism, that our life ends completely with the body. The latter to transmigration of an eternal soul.
A well known Buddhist metaphor for rebirth without transmigration:

The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is it so that one does not
transmigrate and one is reborn?"
"Yes, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn."
"How, venerable Nagasena, is it that one does not transmigrate and one
is reborn? Give me an analogy."
"Just as, your majesty, if someone kindled one lamp from another, is
it indeed so, your majesty, that the lamp would transmigrate from the
other lamp?"
"Certainly not, venerable sir."
"Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is
reborn."
"Give me another analogy."
"Do you remember, your majesty, when you were a boy learning some
verse from a teacher?"
"Yes, venerable sir."
"Your majesty, did this verse transmigrate from the teacher?"
"Certainly not, venerable sir."
"Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is
reborn."
"You are clever, venerable Nagasena."
-from The Questions Of King Melinda, Miln III.5.5. Canonical in Burmese Buddhism but not other traditions, and widely translated and
read in the Buddhist world

A way to think about behaving ethically can be drawn from understanding why we are polite. We could see it as motivated by reward: expecting politeness & consideration from others. But among strangers we are very unlikely to see again, we continue to be polite. It is part of manifesting the kind of social world we want to see. And we shift motivation from future reward or condemnation, to the acts themselves, as embodying living the kind of person we want to be. The Eightfold Path is a process of cataloguing and addressing how we live with this same approach, to go from acting for specific results, which tie an action to a time frame, even if one outside of our own lifetimes before it will reach fruition. In the politeness example, it might mean going beyond acting to create the social world we want to be in, to a deeper awareness of how our actions shape our mind, who we are right this moment only (meditation being a key route to deepening that), and so go beyond trying to create the society we can imagine we want, to drawing on deeper guidance, towards manifesting what we cannot imagine, but aligns with who we are becoming.
You say

following the Noble Eightfold Path, and it could have a minute
positive change for the world after you're gone

I like this way of phrasing why the doing of things can be it's own purpose:

"When … you realize that you live in, that indeed you are this moment
now, and no other, that apart from this there is no past and no
future, you must relax and taste to the full, whether it be pleasure
or pain. At once it becomes obvious why this universe exists, why
conscious beings have been produced, why sensitive organs, why space,
time, and change. The whole problem of justifying nature, of trying to
make life mean something in terms of its future, disappears utterly.
Obviously, it all exists for this moment. It is a dance, and when you
are dancing you are not intent on getting somewhere… The meaning and
purpose of dancing is the dance."

Alan Watts, from ‘The Wisdom of Insecurity’

We are never isolated individuals, we blurred into existence, as part of someone elses body, cared for through our vulnerability, and absolutely requiring our community-developed language, to even have the word 'self'. We are built out of the lives of others, and others will take up the masks and costumes that we think we are, until we realise we can put them down.
Continuity is a matter of degree, not only with the person who wakes up tomorrow, but each thought, is an expression of a different person than existed before it. The threads that crossed in you will cross again, and a person not different from you will be there. What would you wish to put in their hands? What advice would you give your younger self? In reconciling your own contradictions, and how to live, you help compound those for others, to make what paths you take easier, to make your insights or those you've valued more accessible.
Circumstances themselves, are not the issue. It's how you experience them. Of course pure abodes are easier than the hells. But human balance time for spirituality, with the spur of suffering. Similarly in choosing pur life, we need a middle path. But awakening is beyond karma, beyond suffering, it is unshakeable liberation from them, it is waking up from them to the world as it is.

Your perplexity is based on the assumption that maybe a world evolves without consciousness and in the world there comes to be what is called mind, consciousness and intellect.
Therefore you wonder how mind having ceased here arises there.
In the Buddhist texts it is explained that the world is conceived & perceived by mind.
A simple analogy is how your brain conceives & perceives an entire dream world when sleeping.
Suppose in a dream you could see with eyes of other people, it won't then surprise you that consciousness having been there arose here because all locations are immediately connected as the system is conceived non-locally and perceived based on a particular location.
In Buddhism the entire world is conceived & perceived by that in the world through which one perceives the world and there is no world outside of that. The mind is also called 'a world'.

Reincarnation and Karma can be explained in spite of declaring that sabbe Dhamma Anatta.
Reincarnations happen all the time (as Yeshe says from moment to moment). When  body disintegrates we say someone has died and when someone manifests as body, we say someone has taken birth. But this is a wrong understanding or ignorance. This idea is at the very root of ignorance. World enjoys and suffers due to this ignorance. Eventual outcome of such a understanding is suffering.

With ignorance as condition volitional formations come to be,
with volitional formations as condition consciousness comes to be,
with consciousness as condition name and form comes to be,
with name and form as condition six senses comes to be,
with six senses as condition feelings comes to be,
with feelings as condition cravings come to be,
with craving as condition clinging comes to be,
with clinging as condition attachments comes to be,
with attachments as condition renewed rebirths come to be (along with pain, sorrow, lamentations, ageing, death, etc).

Therefore we see that it is the ignorance which lead us to the idea of self, birth and death.
Real Buddhists practice the teachings to never return again. That is no reincarnation because if ignorance is removed it becomes immaterial to even judge who gets reincarnated.
In short rebirth follows from ignorance. Remove ignorance and you will understand Anatta.
Karma is part of the game being played under the magnetic powers of ignorance.

There were no Buddhist books when the Buddha was alive. Buddhism was taught orally by monks.
The scriptures (MN 117) say there are two types of teachings:
(i) teachings about kamma & 'rebirth' related to self acquisition that side with merit
(ii) transcendent teachings, connected with Emptiness, which are part of the Noble Path
The sutta MN 143 makes it clear the transcendent teachings were generally only taught to monks (although we have rare accounts in scripture of them taught to laypeople)
The sutta DN 31 say the duty of a monk is to teach goodness, non-evil and the path to heaven (not Nibbana) to laypeople.
In MN 26, AN 10.95, Dhp 58 and Dhp 174 it is made very clear most people cannot realise anatta. This is why one of the most important words in Buddhism is "puthujjana", as follows"

a worldling (puthujjana), someone with a thick blindfold covering the
eye of insight

In summary, the Buddha always taught "a being", "person" or "self" is "reborn" (example SN 42.3). If a self was not "reborn", an individual would have no incentive to do good.
In conclusion, imputing not-self upon the kamma & 'rebirth' teachings renders them ineffective; just as imputing 'rebirth' upon the anatta teachings renders them ineffective.

wow - two downvotes from those who appear to ignore the teachings