text:
Why are Buddhist monks not as extreme as Jain monks when it comes to non-violence?
Why are Buddhist monks not as extreme as Jain monks when it comes to non-violence? For example Jain monks sweep the floor in front of them to avoid stepping on insects/microbes. As far as I'm aware, Buddhist monks don't do this. I'm guessing it is just that the traditions of the two religions through time have been different. But wouldn't it make sense for the Buddhist monks to be as extreme as Jain monks as they also try to avoid harming any living thing? Or maybe Buddhist monks could justify not doing these things as it would eat up more time in their day thus leaving less time for meditation practice? Thoughts anyone? Thanks

Buddhist monks aren't practicing properly if they willfully commit bad karma to save time. Whatever practice is done in that saved time would be done on top of   bad karma. The more bad karma a practice has behind it the more likely it leads the practitioner towards suffering and away from wisdom.
In the Buddha's teaching, any action that
involves karma comes with volition (cetana). Action without volition is neither bad nor good.
For example, the blind monk, Cakkhupala, killed some insects while doing walking meditation. He did not have the
volition(cetana) to kill any insect so no bad or good karma would have arisen. Even though Cakkhupala  stepped on them, no bad intentions arised. In this way Cakkupala did nothing wrong.

Mahavira aka Nigantha Nataputta, the founder of Jainism, taught that physical karma is more blameworthy than mental karma.
The Buddha however, taught that all karma begins from the mind, thus it is mental karma that is most blameworthy.

“Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes the physical rod as being the most
blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the verbal rod or
the mental rod.” .....
“I describe mental deeds as being the most blameworthy for performing
bad deeds, not so much physical deeds or verbal deeds.”
MN 56

This can be found in the verse from the Dhammapada:

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as
their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil
mind, 'dukkha' (suffering) follows him just as the
wheel follows the hoofprint
of the ox that draws the cart.
Dhammapada 1

The commentary to Dhammapada 1 tells the story of Ven. Cakkhupala, a blind elder arahat monk who accidentally and unintentionally killed some small insects by stepping on them.
The Buddha said that Cakkhupala did not have the (mental) intention to kill the insects, hence he was not guilty of it.
However, based on Jainism, mentally intending to kill insects without actually performing the act is not as bad as accidentally killing the insects without mentally intending to. Or at least this is the case, according to MN 56 (quoted above).
In MN 101, the Buddha debunked the following teachings of the Jains:

All the happens to a person is due to past karma
Elimination of past karma is possible by penance
Elimination of karma is possible by not accumulating new karma
With emptying of all past bad and good karma, suffering would end

In other words, the Jain way is emptying the karma account in order to end the cycle of rebirth, which is suffering.
The Buddha's path is that of the purification of the mind to end suffering, and not emptying of the karma account.
The Jain idea is that suffering is sustained by karmic balance. The Buddhist teaching is that suffering is sustained by craving and ignorance.

“Mendicants, there are some ascetics and brahmins who have this
doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual
experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of past deeds.
So, due to eliminating past deeds by mortification, and not doing any
new deeds, there’s nothing to come up in the future. With nothing to
come up in the future, deeds end. With the ending of deeds, suffering
ends. With the ending of suffering, feeling ends. And with the ending
of feeling, all suffering will have been worn away.’ Such is the
doctrine of the Jain ascetics.
I’ve gone up to the Jain ascetics who say this and said, ‘Is it really
true that this is the venerables’ view?’ They admitted that it is. ...
But since you don’t know any of these things, it’s not appropriate for
the Jain venerables to declare this.’  ...
Such is the doctrine of the Jain ascetics. Saying this, the Jain
ascetics deserve rebuke and criticism on ten legitimate grounds.
MN 101

Good householder. There are "many" monks who would abstain to sweep the soil, fearing to 'dig' into it or useless harm and kill. There are also those using a broom. However, hypocritical moral has no place within the training, yet it's for sure not easy to know ones mind, especially if not Noble yet.

But wouldn't it make sense for the Buddhist monks to be as extreme as Jain monks as they also try to avoid harming any living thing?
Buddhism is famously a "Middle Way" (Wikipedia), which is said to mean, "avoiding the two extremes".
That Wikipedia article mentions that there are suttas which criticise the Jains for some of their relatively extreme practices.
That said there are rules for Buddhist monks to avoid harming living things -- for example they are not to dig earth (unless it's clean gravel or sand or something). And I think there is sweeping in some places, to keep the paths clean, but I suppose it's situational, and is not a ritual to be practiced always (in fact, "rites and rituals" in general is considered one of the "fetters").


text:
Disconnected instead of detached
I practice mindfulness and meditation for a few years, since I took a 10 week mindfulness course. In some periods more intensely (daily), some periods (weeks) not. Recently increased the intensity by taking the waking-up app, and meditate & reflect more frequently
I detach more from emotions and thoughts, and find it interesting to see them arise and pass. But it also gives me a sense of disconnect.
If every thought is just arising (and passing) on its own, I put less value in it: why even believe the thought?
Emotions are interesting to be taken away by (at least in reflection after it). But if I try to let them just pass, it feels like not really being engaged in life.
Often the comparison is made, that there is no ego watching the river of experiences, but that we are only the river. To me, it feels like floating on the river. With less meditation, I feel more like a boat, steering and aiming at goals.
Meditation has given me more detachment from emotions and thoughts, letting me see them rise and pass more. But this also gives me a sense of disconnection, perhaps even a flavor of nihilism or apathy (why does it all even matter). How can I navigate the balance correctly?

I'm not an expert, but from what I've read and experienced, while the connection to one's own (afflictive, egoistic or trivial) emotions decreases, love, compassion and a general connection to others can increase. To cultivate this, you could practice meditation on the four immeasurables (loving kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity, e.g. with sessions from this retreat: https://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/spring2012/). Maybe - I don't know you or details of your experience - it would also be helpful to talk to a psychologist.

I see those connections indeed decrease, or at least those emotions subside more quickly. Thus the advice is to put more attention/practice on desired emotions (the 4 immeasurables), to increase them. Sounds good. But also feels like an "I can make myself think what I want myself to think". How to chose what to think?

Good question... I suppose it's not about choosing thoughts (as a self that creates and controls them), but about having the intention to direct attention onto the happiness and suffering of others (maybe in a way similar to the intention to focus on the breath, an image, mental content,... in shamatha (or mindfulness?) meditation) and observe what happens in the mindstream afterwards.

One last question, what do you think a psychologist could provide related to this?

Maybe they could explore how the features you describe (e.g. "sense of disconnection, perhaps even a flavor of nihilism or apathy)" might relate to you, your life and so on and maybe you could find solutions together that match your individual needs (whereas here, we don't know you or details of your life and (most of us probably) aren't experts in psychology).

As Rome burned, Emperor Nero stood disconnected and detached. He blamed the Christians for the fire. Disconnection and detachment are attributes of the dimension of nothingness.
Although we might attempt to escape suffering in a shell of nothingness, it is a hollow shell separated from others. And we might escape further into neither perception or non-perception, yet find there no lasting relief.
Ultimately we might be left alone with hunger and food, cold and shelter, loneliness and a caring friend.

MN121:10.4: ‘Here there is no stress due to the perception of the dimension of nothingness or the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.
MN121:10.5: There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’

And with those common needs remaining we might realize the futility of running away. And we might turn around and practice our lives for one and all.

AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

And that is why right ethics is the foundation of all right practice.

I have a slightly similar problem: which is that if someone else is unhappy or worried about something then I find it hard to empathise (i.e. I too am "disconnected").
When they tell me what they're worried about (e.g. someone's friend dying in hospital), it's like I have developed an "immune reaction" to that kind of sadness, and think to myself, "Well of course that kind of thing, illness, that is only to be expected eventually", maybe other thoughts like, "I'm happy to remember that friend because I remember them as a good person" -- but it's difficult to explain my reaction to the person who says they're suffering (i.e. to share it with them).
Still, perhaps that suggests one type of antidote to the problem -- i.e. more empathy (and possibly finding more occasion for empathy). If you study the Brahmaviharas (and there is much of that subject on Access to Insight), it says that "Pity" and "Indifference" are two of the "near enemies".
I think that part of the root of these (e.g. of "Pity") is "conceit" and especially the act of "comparison" (e.g. "you are upset and I am not") -- How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
Secondly, another antidote might be "virtue" and "virtuous behaviour" in general. The "river" shows up as a Buddhist metaphor as being something to be safely crossed or even escaped from, instead of being carried along and swept away by it. You say with less meditation you are more like a navigable boat and less just floating. I'm not sure I can advise you on that, perhaps it's why some people become monks, i.e. to practice meditation instead of other goals.
Thirdly it might help to consider also (maybe to take pleasure or ease in) what doesn't exist and use that as some kind of motive (instead of only being detached from what does exist) -- I found this answer helpful.

The brahmaviharas are thus emotions / mental states recommended to cultivate. "They are the meditative states, thoughts, and actions to be cultivated in Buddhist meditation." In a way, guidance on what to make oneself think. They make sense indeed. How does one cultivate them? By being mindful, I kind of expected everything to dissolve except those. But perhaps, I just deviate to near enemies of those (which each seem to be shortcuts).

Disconnection is a kind of aversion; it's the egoic self protecting itself through avoidance. Detachment doesn't deny, diminish, or avoid the experience. If mental phenomena are arising they are exactly what's happening at that moment, and we shouldn't dismiss them as meaningless or valueless. Mental phenomena are the mind and body trying to make us aware of something. Acknowledge that and take it seriously, but keep firm in the attitude that we are not dealing with that right now. We want to teach the egoic mind to have some discrimination, so that it only intrudes when it's useful and necessary.
I mean, consider... If we're sitting in meditation and we experience certain arisings — a smell of wood-smoke, a deep crackling sound, a flickering sensation of heat and light at our back — we probably want to get up off the cushion and go call the fire department. We could sit and observe the phenomena until it dissipated, which it eventually would, but that might not bode well for our physical form, or for others in the building. Any arising we experience is a signal of that sort, though more often than not it's merely a signal that our thinking mind is fretful and bored. It's important to engage the signal with attention, but not to act on it or give it power unless it's actually a pressing concern. Meditation time is not the time for that, and whatever it is can come back when we're done.
We don't want to sit and experience the river like a piece of driftwood headed out to sea, any more than we want to kick and flail about like a drowning man trying to save himself. We watch the river like a pilot setting a course, unconcerned but actively aware, finding that middle path where the waters are deep and the currents are favorable.

Perhaps indeed the disconnection is a mental trick to mimic detachment, or I'm still in a more dualistic mindset. Feeling like there is an entity watching the mental phenomena rise & fall.
In the case of an emergency like a fire, it is of course clear what to do. It doesn't make sense not to act.
In less critical situations I sometimes resolve to watching (interested) the arising phenomena. But this watching, causes me to be more passive. Less 'in the world', and more looking at the world. More like driftwood indeed.

Maybe I should think more about how to act, given the signals of mental phenomena, instead of watching phenomena like a passive observer.

@gerben: Thinking about it is probably a step in the wrong direction...  ;-) it's more about connecting with the arisings, or seeing them for what they are instead of merely waiting them out. In a way, it's a form of self-compassion: acknowledging that your mind and body are trying to pull you away from full awareness, and accepting it for exactly what it is, without acting on it or pushing it away.

Meditation is blissful in its seclusion.

MN8:4.1: It’s possible that a certain mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, might enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

Yet that blissful freedom from everyday concerns creates a challenge.

MN8:4.2: They might think
MN8:4.3: they’re practicing self-effacement.
MN8:4.4: But in the training of the Noble One these are not called ‘self-effacement’;

It creates a challenge as soon as we re-enter the everyday world with its demands and concerns that require some connection.
To address the dangers of disconnection, the Buddha teaches ethics as a guide to making positive connections.
For example, if a good friend comes to us in pain, we might delay our meditation a bit and talk to them kindly to avoid being cruel.

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

And if we meditate best on a favorite cushion but another is struggling in pain, we might share that favorite cushion and use another cushion that serves almost as well for ourselves.

MN8:12.30: ‘Others will be stingy, but here we will be without stinginess.’

Ethics protect us against harmful disconnection.

DN34:2.3.4: First, a mendicant is ethical, restrained in the monastic code, conducting themselves well and seeking alms in suitable places. Seeing danger in the slightest fault, they keep the rules they’ve undertaken.
DN34:2.3.6: This is a quality that serves as protector.

The ethics thus are restrictions, like the Brahmaviharas are a goal? It makes sense, but in some way, they externalize my decisions. My decisions& behavior follows my internal moral/ethical code. In trivial cases the ethics always make sense, but in challenging situations they could contradict, which can happen in small & big decisions. Like a new job: better able to support family, but less time with them. It of course depends; on what one feels/thinks is most important, and in the magnitudes. Especially then I can make myself think what I want, confirming any made decision.

Hmm. The asymmetry of Buddhist ethics is actually a guard against confirmation bias. "Others will be cruel, here we will not be cruel".  Ethics is actually foundational.

First Things First, samvega, is very base of the practise toward liberation, while foolish householder-equanimity and feeding on would lead one firm caught in the stream, good householder. Or does good householder, aside of his equanimity not still goes after pleasant signs, sound, smell, taste, touch, thoughts and with it still not living just on what is given?
As for being given of what one doesn't like, sees no refuge, there is all opening, as it wouldn't be required to make it yours. Disconnect makes only free after having followed the right connection, bound to the Gems, heading toward liberation, disconnected from worldly affairs and common ones. Wise to chose whether connected/disconnected with what is subject of, heading to, decay or not.

I disagree with tone tone of this answer. Compassion practice would subdue some of the harshness.

Good to think about ones reaction toward useful advices, or, good householder. As one perceives, so one thinks.

Some find "One can be fixated on masturbation just as easily as one can be fixated on having sex with others; neither fixation is likely to work out for the best.", compassionate advice... yet the Sublime Buddha would simply call him, out of compassion, a fool.

My advice still stands.

...So the Sublime Buddhas compassion. Yet whom would a smart turn to and go after?

...mn8 ""Cunda, it is impossible that one who is himself sunk in the mire[23] should pull out another who is sunk in the mire. But it is possible, Cunda, that one not sunk in the mire himself should pull out another who is sunk in the mire."" "In the Noble One's discipline, the 'mire' is a name for the five sense desires." :-) Whom would an addicted go after and sink.

Right speech means refraining from lying, from rude speech, and from speech that sows harm or discord in relationships. The first doesn't apply here, but this answer and these comments are confrontational: perhaps intentionally, perhaps not. 'Speaking truth' does not outweigh the obligation to speak gently and compassionately. I respect the desire to pull people from the mire; I don't see the sense in rubbing their faces in the mire as you pull.

This reads a bit too cryptic.  What do you specifically think is happening, and what do you advise, in layman's terms?

@gerben, I've tried to address the concerns voiced in these comments in a new answer. Reading this exchange made me realize what I may have missed in my first answer. Hopefully that may prove useful.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is Upekṣā (equanimity) a feeling or simply numbness?
Is Upekṣā (equanimity) a certain kind of feeling which if attained, everyone will feel in a similar way, or its a kind of numbness to sensory input? From the wiki the definition of equanimity says

is a state of psychological stability and composure which is
undisturbed by experience of or exposure to emotions, pain, or other
phenomena

It is not clear to me, as a Brahmavihara, is it a special kind of feeling, or it simply is maintaining calm composure in all circumstances,kind of indifference attitude, but this sounds like if practiced, is certain kind of numbness to sensory input, meaning, no matter what is the sensory input is, you stop or repress any kind of feeling that may arise.

Feelings are like clouds in the sky. They are seen, but we don't build our houses on them. Clouds come and go, sometimes bringing rain and wind and sometimes not.

SN36.19:5.3: In one explanation I’ve spoken of two feelings. In another explanation I’ve spoken of three feelings, or five, six, eighteen, thirty-six, or a hundred and eight feelings.

Clouds are beautiful and mesmerizing. Liking feelings and clouds, we might even chase them:

SN32.13-52:1.11: ‘If only, when my body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of the gods of rainy clouds!’
SN32.13-52:1.12: They give food …
SN32.13-52:1.13: a lamp.
SN32.13-52:1.14: When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in the company of the gods of rainy clouds.
SN32.13-52:1.15: This is the cause, this is the reason why someone, when their body breaks up, after death, is reborn in the company of the gods of rainy clouds.”

And if cloud-chasing proves unfruitful, we might then stubbornly ignore clouds, trying hard to be numb to clouds, stopping or repressing any kind of feelings that may arise about clouds. But if we become numb to clouds, we'll likely be surprised by storms on some days and sunburned on other days.
However, if we watch clouds carefully, with equanimity, we might gain insight and be better served by knowing when to plant, when to harvest and when to seek shelter. Watching clouds very carefully, we gain insight into their coming and going. That very insight leads to a peaceful pleasant feeling that is finer than chasing clouds or feelings.

SN36.19:6.12: Because there is another pleasure that is finer than that.
SN36.19:7.1: And what is that pleasure?
SN36.19:7.2: It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

Equanimity allows us to observe carefully. And what do we observe carefully? Well, the second of the four mindful meditations is actually the meditation on feelings. We observe feelings rid of desire and aversion.

MN118:25.1: Whenever a mendicant practices breathing while experiencing rapture,
MN118:25.2: or experiencing bliss,
MN118:25.3: or experiencing these emotions,
MN118:25.4: or stilling these emotions—
MN118:25.5: at that time they meditate observing an aspect of feelings—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN118:25.6: For I say that close attention to the in-breaths and out-breaths is an aspect of feelings.

In other words, we observe feelings undisturbed by them. We observe, "this is a pleasant feeling." We observe, "this is a painful feeling." We observe, "this is a neutral feeling."
If we watch clouds with equanimity, we might see the ocean that gives rise to the clouds. We might see the mountains that catch the rain and channel it to the sea via streams and lakes. With equanimity we might see beyond the clouds, beyond the feelings:

AN10.61:4.1: It’s like when the rain pours down on a mountain top, and the water flows downhill to fill the hollows, crevices, and creeks. As they become full, they fill up the pools. The pools fill up the lakes, the lakes fill up the streams, and the streams fill up the rivers. And as the rivers become full, they fill up the ocean.

If we define numbness to sensory input as Upekṣā, we should be able to reach Upekṣā by severing our sensory inputs. But it does not happen that way.
The problem is not in the sensory inputs. The problem is that we evaluate the sensory inputs, assign a value to it, then start building attachments or resistance towards it, based on the value assigned by ourselves. As we chase the illusion, we are not reacting to the actual sensory input. Instead, we build our own version of the world within our mind, assign values to it, and form attachments to them or build resistance and fight with them. All of this is done for one purpose: to prove to oneself that there is 'oneself' and a 'world outside'. The reality is that there is just a process of sensory input interpretations, the thought of that interpretation and oneself are not two things, its one and the same. We fool ourselves (asmimana) building a world just to prove our-self that there is 'me' because 'I' was able to recognize 'you'.
In Arhath state, this process does not take place, so there is no attachment nor resistance as the need to prove that there is 'me' and 'there exists a world according to me' is no more.
Keep in mind that Upekṣā (equanimity) is an effect of understanding the true nature of the world. If you try to be numb towards the sensory inputs you are making Upekṣā a cause, not an effect. The difference between these two are much like an actor playing the role of Abram Lincoln, compared to the real Abram Lincoln. One is genuine, while the other is just a pretender. Rather than, trying to reach Upekṣā forcibly, try to look into the process that takes place within your mind when those sensory inputs hit you. It would allow you to escape from this dilemma.

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


text:
Is there anything like mahamudra without guru yoga
I am attracted to the idea of meditating upon the mind as a path to liberation, as I understand is emphasized in mahamudra.  However, I dislike the idea of guru yoga, or meditating in reverence or worship towards living or recently deceased individuals, like the 16th Karmapa. Holding another person up on such a pedestal rubs me the wrong way, and I do not know if I can honestly practice guru yoga. (I wouldn’t mind meditating upon the Buddha. I understand you are supposed to imagine the guru as the Buddha, but I do not want to do that either.)
Do you have any recommendations on what to do? Are there other schools that offer meditation upon the mind, but do not have such emphasis on the guru aspect?
Similarly, I am discouraged by having to do so many prostrations, but this is not as discouraging as guru yoga.

The Surangama Sutra lays out just such a path, focused on the mind and meditation on the nature of mind. The Buddhist Text Translation Society will let you download a free copy of theirs, or you can buy one if you prefer a physical book.

Thank you for the fine reference.

I'd recommend Shamatha with the mind as an object or without an object (awareness of awareness) as taught by Alan Wallace, see e.g. the later sessions of this retreat: The Way of Shamatha Retreat with Alan Wallace - YouTube (there's a little bit of guru yoga in few separate sessions, but they're not neccessary for the main shamatha practice) or his book "The Attention Revolution". This practice can also be combined with paths like mahamudra or dzogchen, but doesn't have to.

Thank you. Do you know of any schools that meditate on the mind, but don’t emphasize guru yoga? I have been meditating by myself for a long time and want to find a school primarily so that I can find a teacher.

Unfortunately, I don't know specific schools, I just meditate on my own so far, too. Maybe some online courses might be close to what you are looking for, e.g. the ones by Alan Wallace within Wisdom Publications, like maybe this one for example: https://wisdomexperience.org/courses/shamatha-vipashyana/. You could also ask other students of Alan Wallace for recommendations e.g. here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/awstudents

Thank you very much.

I'm from the same viewpoint too. I often wondered about Zen/Chan and Mahayana versus Vajrayana. My guess is the crux shouldn't be rituals and forms, if that's the original non-aim.
Also Nubchen Sangye Yeshe who's Guru Rinpoche's disciple summarized Mahayana covering 4 paths.

Sutrayana (gradual) - basically foundations of #2,3,4. Own learning/understanding and application.
Sutrayana (sudden) -Zen/Chan etc. Includes Koans, direct pointing. Adatra t combination of 3 and 4 but without rituals/images etc.
Maha-yoga (gradual) - Visualization, yogas, includes Mahamudra and usually Shamatha first, then Vipashyana.
Ati-yoga/Dzogchen (sudden).formless and objectless meditation.

Nonetheless you will realize all paths are actually the same, combinations of Shamatha and Vipyashana (Vipasanna) in specified orders. Surangama as pointed earlier also works and fall under Sutrayana (gradual).
However, the above 4 bullet points are a bit of false options because one needs to prepare the mind before the instant paths are made available. That means only 2 essential paths of Sutrayana and the Yogas. Whichever picked is based on the cause and conditions your in. (Also expedient means provided by the earlier practioners)
So for example, usually need years of Shamatha to have mental stability (from defilements), or need guru to have a direct experience of true nature before you can do Dzogchen repeatedly in normal lay life. One could also do the same with development/completion visualizations with an appropriate Yidam etc. to lay the foundations leading up to Shamatha. Visualizations contain meditation components.
I haven't got a clear conclusion as yet but this is what I gathered so far. Thankfully I'm also physically based in the confluence of all major practices including the cultures and languages.


text:
What is the proper name for the Myanmar temple in Myanmar’s largest city, Yangon?
I am looking for the proper/correct spelling of the Buddhist Temple structure in Yangon, Myanmar.  I have seen two names and I think they are both referencing the same place.
The names are:
Shwedagon Paya and Shwezigon Pagoda
(I believe Paya and Pagoda can also be switched in the above two names)
Are these name referring to the same Buddhist temple complex?
I plan on visiting this site next year.
Thank you.
Namaste

The official website here calls it the "Shwedagon Pagoda".
Also, please see the Visitors' Information.

No visit to the Union of Myanmar is complete without a visit to the
2,500 years old Shwedagon Pagoda, which enshrines strands of Buddha's
hair and other holy relics. Located west of the Royal Lake on 114
-acre Singuttara Hill in Yangon, Shwedagon Pagoda is the most sacred and impressive Buddhist site for the people of the Union of Myanmar.
From a humble beginning of 8.2 meters, the Shwedagon Pagoda today
stands close to 110 meters. Shwedagon Pagoda is covered with hundreds
of gold plates and the top of the stupa is encrusted with 4531
diamonds; the largest of which is a 72 carat diamond. It is clearly
one of the wonders of the religious world. Shwedagon Pagoda is a
repository of the best in Myanmar heritage - architecture, sculpture
and arts. The Shwedagon Pagoda consists hundreds colorful temples,
stupas, and statues that reflects the architectural era spanning
almost a 2,500 years.

Are Shwezigon and Paya just another way of spelling the same location?  I ask because some travel guides use that spelling as well.

@tale852150 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shwezigon_Pagoda and Google Maps says that exists but is somewhere else i.e. Nyaung-U near the centre of the country, whereas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shwedagon_Pagoda is in Yangon which is near the south coast.

Shwedagon Pagoda is in Yangon and Shwezigon Pagoda is located at Bagan city.  Bagan city is also major tourist attraction place with the ancient city of Bagan where you can see ancient Buddhist religious building literally in every direction.
Hope this helps.

If you look at the Burmese Wikipedia page, it gives the name...
ရွှေတိဂုံစေတီတော်
shwaytigonehcaytetaw
That transliteration of the Burmese script into Latin script is from Google Translate. The English-language Wikipedia page that the user "ruben2020" linked to earlier also substantiates "ရွှေတိဂုံစေတီတော်" as the "official name." It is uncited, so it is difficult to know if this information is correct. Wikipedia transcribes the Burmese into IPA like this...
"ʃwèdəɡòʊɰ̃ zèdìdɔ̀"
...but you'll need to look at the corresponding article on Burmese IPA.
The "zèdì" in the above transcription looks like it is this same word here from Burmese Wiktionary. The other word Wiktionary lists for "stūpa/caitya" is "ဘုရား," or "pʰəjá." None of the earlier resources use that term, so it seems unlikely that that would be its "proper" name. Sorry I can't be more conclusive. Is there a Burmese language StackExchange? You could also try there too if such a thing exists.


text:
Will working for a company that engages in animal experimentation to alleviate suffering of humans be wrong livelihood?
I have been lurking here for a long time, but I made an account just to ask this because I am very conflicted, and I think some of you here maybe able to help me like you have many times before without you knowing.
I have the opportunity to join a company (it's in stealth so I can't say much) in a very senior leadership position on the business side. I have a coveted background for this because although I have built my career around business functions, I have several, admittedly very elitist degrees, including 2 masters degrees in hard sciences and engineering, direct research experience in a similar area while in academia (although I never engaged in / actively avoided animal experiments), and have a fancy resume when it comes to my career. The company is very promising and is founded by someone who also founded a very very well known company that has had massive success. It also has an A+ research team, and is backed by several well known billionaires, so it has the resources and potential to reduce the suffering of many people with serious unmet medical needs.
On a personal level, I am still fairly young and this is a big opportunity for me that I never thought I would have at this point in my career, and I feel the work has meaning, which is something I struggled with in my previous and current role. But the fact that the company engages in and will continue to engage in animal experimentation for research, really brings an uneasy feeling in my chest that is hard to explain. Once again, I will be on the business side and will not being doing any direct research work ever, and that work will be done whether I join them or not, and I have the potential to help in maximizing the good that comes out of that work by helping more people benefit from the outcomes, but it still feels... wrong?
I doubt there is something in there is anything directly relevant in the suttas, but can someone guide me here? I feel lost.
p.s. after typing this I recognize that I want people to say this is ok and there's nothing wrong with it. Please don't do that if it's not what you believe.

The commentary to Dhammapada 124 reads:

Then the Buddha returned to the monastery and told Thera Ananda and
other bhikkhus about the hunter Kukkutamitta and his family attaining
Sotapatti Fruition in the early part of the morning. The bhikkhus then
asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the hunter who is a
sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting
things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out
hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the
sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The
wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for
him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so
also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any
evil."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

If there is
no wound on the hand, one may handle poison; poison does not affect
one who has no wound; there can be no evil for one who has no evil
intention.

So, based on the above, I would say that if you work in a company that deals in the business of living creatures (sattavaṇijjā), but your job function is completely unrelated to harming or exploiting living creatures, for e.g. you're maintaining the IT systems, or you're working in Human Resources managing work contracts, then you're not violating the Right Livelihood for lay persons, as defined in AN 5.177.
On the other hand, if you directly harm or exploit living creatures, for e.g. as an experimental scientist, or if you're the business owner or key decision maker (i.e. very senior leader) who influences the operation or business of harming or exploiting living creatures, then yes, that's violating the Right Livelihood for lay persons.
The reason for this is explained in Dhp 124:

If there is
no wound on the hand, one may handle poison; poison does not affect
one who has no wound; there can be no evil for one who has no evil
intention.

It's all about intentions.
As a side note, this answer applies only to unethical animal experimentation. It may be possible that there exist ethical versions of animal experimentation, but that's out of the scope of this answer.

I haven’t still been able to make up my mind, but this helped more than I can describe right now. Thank you.

So, if you work for say "Exxon/Mobil" and do no direct fossil fuel pumping, burning you are OK?  Besides, "Obeying the husband" is an anachronism.

@bsd The doctrine of Buddhism cares only about intention: If you have genuine intention to do X, a tendency is generated, and X will (in most cases) eventually be done. If you wanted to kill people and you hired a hitman to do it, you still had the intention to kill, even though you didn't directly do it. Regarding ExxonMobil, if you genuinely want to protect the environment, you will have the tendency to do so, the company is irrelevant. Some Buddhists may tell you exactly what to do in this situation, others don't. Whether you believe this doctrine is valid or not is another matter.

We're splitting hairs here. I know how I feel and think about myself, my actions, and my choices when I lay my head on my pillow at night, regardless of any specific doctrine.

@bsd Well then, you already answered your own question.

Very good explanation. Actually I worked in IT department of a company that sells cropcare products including INSECTICIDES. I have never had the intention to kill or harm living creatures during my time working in that company. I just did my job, which was to install and maintain the IT systems.

I think wrong livelihood for lay-people is narrowly defined in the suttas -- in AN 5.177:

Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.

Ven. Sujato translates the same slightly differently:

Mendicants, a lay follower should not engage in these five trades. What five? Trade in weapons, living creatures, meat, intoxicants, and poisons. A lay follower should not engage in these five trades.

I've read modern commentators expand on that to add it should be  an "honest" living, not based on fraud or deceit.
There's a slightly related topic here: Is it ethical to develop software for financial company?
I think the consensus there was that if you develop some product (other than one of the five proscribed) you're not necessarily blame-worthy if some people mis-use it.
Another related topic might be all the ones which ask about vegetarianism including for example Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong? -- and opinions seem to differ, with some people (and some schools of Buddhism) saying that buying and eating meat isn't blame-worthy because in doing so you yourself don't have the intention to kill (and other people or schools disagreeing).
Another question might be, what do you mean by "alleviate suffering of humans"?  I've now chosen to work for a company that produces medical software (used in hospitals) instead of "financial technology" -- and I don't regret that choice, I don't know a better one -- but that (i.e. medical technology) isn't exactly the type of "alleviating suffering" that Buddhism is about (Buddhist "suffering" might be more about the second of the "two arrows").
Even so, "providing medical care" is generally ethical, and is an action (and intention) that one might not regret -- and apparently it's even a duty, for monks also.
And a for animal experimentation in particular, you might find people have written about that, more precisely than in this answer -- for example A moderate Buddhist animal research ethics for example looks relevant (but that's behind a paywall so I haven't read it).
Another topic from modern history -- apparently Nazis performed immoral medical experiments on humans, is it immoral for others to use the results of those experiments? That's an extreme scenario (though "animal experimentation"  might be considered extreme also), and therefore perhaps not a good way to think about everyday morality, but perhaps it introduces another topic that's been discussed on this site, i.e. the so-called trolley problem.
Answers like this one might imply that lay livelihood is a no-win scenario and might help provide insight into why some people choose to live as monks instead.
In summary you're conflicted, and I'm not sure that the suttas provide an easy answer to your question. If the "vegetarianism" is one of the closest topics, people and schools seem to differ:

Some people have what seems to me a "compartmentalised" view (like "my paying the butcher doesn't mean that I want to kill"), which I find hard to understand
Other people have a broader view (like "all types of agriculture results in some animal deaths"), which I find hard to deny

Personally I am vegetarian, I think that means not that I'm especially virtuous but I'm fortunate or rich to live in a society where that amount of choice is even possible. I have "actively avoided" (as you say) working for companies in the "defence industries", so I'm happy (or to some extent conceited) about having done that. But I'm working in the medical industry, which depends on some animal experimentation -- not the company I work for, but the industry as a whole -- so to some extent there's no avoiding it.
So I'm not sure how you'll want to draw the line. I feel at peace with my decision, to use my experience as a telecommunication software developer to develop medical software.
Samana Johann wrote in this answer:

So once feeling involved, doubt of ones goodness arises, it's good to lesser seek excuses to continue as usual but look for changing toward proper livelihood.

In his case his own choice of "proper livelihood" is presumably that of monk, not lay-person. Perhaps we're both agreed that "freedom from remorse" is important -- fundamental -- my own decision was that it's better (less regrettable) for me to work like this than not.
There are some more extensive articles including one with an author's discussion of (or opinions about) Right Livelihood, on this page: The Buddhist Layman.

Thank you so much for you answer Chris. Vegetarianism is one of the first parallels I drew myself when I was thinking about this. Like you I am a person who has chosen to not contribute to the meat industry. I don’t call myself vegetarian because I will eat meat when it’s offered to me like when visiting family because I don’t like to burden anyone with my dietary choices, but I chose not to pay for meat or food with meat, so you can see why even with that parallel it is a difficult decision for me, but this answer still helped a lot in reflecting on if I am trying to rationalize a bad choice.

Phew, I won't have to give up the money laundering just yet. ;)

Good householder. Praisworthy to not simply act on fear and sharmeless, praisworthy to seek out for advice from wise. Yet here maybe possible to eliminate doubt and gain release. There is reason why the Sublime Buddha told about livelihoods which serve for harm should not be engaged into (weapons, poison, drugs causing shame/fearlessness, living beings, meet), as such does not give freedom from remorse even if no direct intentions are seeming to be involved. Yet, how ever, even mental agreement of harm for ones gains is unskilful kamma and disliking ones own acts does not help ones healthy self-esteem. So once feeling involved, doubt of ones goodness arises, it's good to lesser seek excuses to continue as usual but look for changing toward proper livelihood. Of course such isnjt amways easy but it's because it requires letting go of harmful to gain at least much more than what ever amount money could buy: freedom from remorse, of which is the entrance of the path toward release.
Gains gathered on harm of others, how ever large, makes never really happy and will not last long. But if gathering only little by little based on virtues, metta toward all, such leaves one always rightly glad and would last long time.
Addition to be clear about an idea of Householder Chris, saying ""Providing medical care" is generally ethical, and is an action (and intention) that one might not regret -- and apparently it's even a duty, for monks also."
Not right in this way: Aside that monks, holding virtue, would not even ask for drugs even if facing death, aside not being given to use medicine which was objected for monks and caused harm. For what evers benefit, if it involves harm, isn't right and does not prevent from it's effects:

"...Dhanañjani, there are other activities — reasonable, righteous — by which one can support one's mother & father, ( children, King, oneself )..., and at the same time both not do evil and practice the practice of merit... see Dhanañjani Sutta

...and as for not going after real right livelihood, althought knowing, it's simply because of lack of willingness, there weakness, even they wouln't really need to give up much... MN 66: Latukikopama Sutta — The Quail Simile

Thank you for answering with no ambiguity on what you believe is the right choice.

I will give you the pure, uncomplicated answer to this question, with the observation that the business world (which I have very little experience with, but understand in a deeply philosophical way) is not entirely comfortable with pure, uncomplicated motivations. Business is artifice embodied; honesty challenges it to be more than that.
Yet still, I'm a fan of honesty.
I'd tell whoever offered you the job something like the following:

I really like this position, and I will accept it because I think I
can do a lot for the company and its clients. I just want to say
upfront that the kind of animal testing you do in other areas troubles
me. I understand the practical necessities, but... could we have some
discussion about that? I'd like to help change it, if possible.

Most likely that will simultaneously shock and impress the person hiring you. Corporate people are not used to people being honest, direct, and idealistic — they tend to get interviewees who try to play the 'sycophant' game just to get the job — and this will change their opinion of you. If it changes their opinion for the better (they start seeing you as strong, dedicated, and authoritative), they will agree to the conversation and hire you, and that puts you in a position to make change for the good. If it changes their opinion for the worse (they start seeing you as a troublemaker or firebrand), you won't get hired, things will stay as they are, and you will be happier for the loss.
The trouble with corporations is that they want to make people into the instruments they want for their own economic purposes. But they also want leaders who can show them the way to be better than they are. You're in a position to fill the second role, but you have to stand up and do it. That means that you have to be honest and true to yourself. Do that well, and you are on the right path.

In this case animal experimentation is must for the company to develop its products/treatments, so there is no way to stop it. But you are right whether I decide to decline or accept, I tend to voice my discomfort and although I cannot stop it maybe I can influence in improving the way animals are treated to be of the highest standards, although I have zero reason to believe there is any mistreatment or inhumane treatment happening right now, in which case this decision would have been much easier.

@zazenwallstreet: Hmmh. 'Must' is such a strong, inflexible word, not usually used in the Buddhist canon... You obviously know more about the details, but I'd hazard that the continued use of animals is as much mindless habit and history as pragmatic necessity. I'd lay decent odds that no one in the research department has ever given serious thought to changes or alternatives, because, you know, that's extra work. Who fixes a boat that floats? What you offer here isn't solutions: you offer steady, gentle, moral pressure. Raise the issue, keep it in awareness. Over time things will change.

Currently the FDA requires animal testing; so it's needed, to get regulatory approval for a new drug or etc. I'd bet researchers do "give serious thought" but perhaps their hands are tied. Of course things may change but it's taken years and will take more.

Would these tests be going on regardless in a department somewhere else in the company or would you be involved with the tests?  If it is the former you could argue the suffering happens whether you work there or not.  If it is the latter then it is a matter for your conscience.

The associated karma is extremely complicated...
If you are supporting the technical systems, probably OK as your decisions will unlikely have the intent to kill or harm the animals.
If you work in business developments, and have to make a business decision that involves more suffering of animals, there will be Karma associated with it.
Not sure if your work in big Pharmas, but these companies have a long history of selling the cure for the problems they create. And this kind of business model will definitely have negative Karma associated with it.

For me, the discourse on happiness is a good sutra about right livelihood:

“Not to be associated with the foolish ones,
To live in the company of wise people,
Honouring those who are worth honouring
This is the greatest happiness.”
“To have a chance to learn and grow,
To be skilful in your profession and craft,
Practicing the precepts and loving speech
This is the greatest happiness.”
“To be able to serve and support your parents,
To cherish your own family,
To have a vocation that brings you joy
This is the greatest happiness.”
“To live honestly, generous in giving,
To offer support to relative and friends,
Living a life of blameless conduct
This is the greatest happiness.”
“To be humble and polite in manner,
to be grateful and content with a simple life,
not missing the occasion to learn the Dharma
This is the greatest happiness.”
...

Is such a work wrong livelihood?
I think there is not “yes or no” answer. My experience is that is not important what we do but it’s important that we do it mindfully, mindful of our intention, what cause us to suffer and what brings us towards true happiness. If we do something that creates suffering but we are mindful of it, we can recognise that it’s not good and move towards what is good instead.
Reading sutras, listen to dharma talks, reading the right books, practicing sitting and walking meditation, praying, all these things nourish my understanding and when it is nourished it becomes more clear, and when it is more clear is easier to make choices that bring me true happiness.
Speaking about work, often the intention can be money, fame or success. Venerable master Thích Nhất Hạnh said: “do you want success or do you want to be happy? If you want success you may be victim of your success, but no one can be victim of his own happiness”.

Lord Buddha taught us that "Chethanahang Bhikkawe Kammang Wadami" - Your intentions becomes karma.
In that light, if your intention is to help the patients you are doing a good deed. However, at a much more fine grained level, you have to keep watch of your thoughts. As an example, when you are dissecting an animal or injecting them with some drug that could cause suffering to them, if you enjoy your act in your mind, you are collecting bad karma. However if you are carrying out the same activity while thinking that your act is going to help thousands of poor patients by curing them from diseases, you are collecting good karma.
If it provides you with any consolation, you can perform acts which generate good karma (punya karma) and assign those to the animals who died as a result of your actions. Animals are in a form of hell (Thirisan Apaya) which is taught of as a bad place to live (As there are worse places than this hell, this does not give anyone the right to kill them though). When you assign the power of your Punya Karma, to them you can hope for them to be re-incarnated in a better place where they can learn and practice Dhamma, thereby have a better chance of attaining Nirvana.

I have worked at medical device companies for most of my career. I have been present in a good number of animal studies, and I don't like seeing them. It is important that you know that the animals are treated as humanely as possible, and there are strict regulations around their treatment in the USA. I consider animal studies to be a necessary evil. Without these studies we would not have modern medical devices or pharmaceuticals. The fact that people can live so long and have healthier lives, compared with the past, is directly due to these devices and pharmaceuticals, and indirectly due to the animal studies. Nothing in life is perfect, but the fact that I'm working to help many people outweighs, by quite a bit, my dislike of animal studies.

Thank you for sharing your first hand experience. Do you ever feel regret despite the logical justification (which I align with)?

No, there is no regret, but it is always sad to see and think about. However, ultimately it is the right thing to do for humanity. Many, many people around the world benefit from these medical devices and drugs....maybe you and I too someday. Maybe they will save our parents, our spouses, and our children.


text:
Complex lifestyle and leads us to get on the correct path
Today, we are living in very complex world. Various lifestyles inspire us greatly. So as being a modern layperson, it is difficult to know good karma and bad one. How would I will be on good path and eventually attain Nirvana with 21 century lifestyle? I wouldn't know which activities and deeds have to stop from doing. Which Buddha teachings do I have to follow, differentiating current lifestyles and livings?

Virtue or sila at the very minimum is the five precepts. This is the minimum practice of Buddhism.
The five precepts (and other precepts) are undertaken as a training on a "try your best basis". If you lapse, you should try harder next time, without feeling remorse. Striving for perfection in the practice of virtue or sila is not required for lay persons.
Further practice of virtue is by the eight precepts (usually in the context of uposatha), ten precepts (as a novice monk), Right Livelihood, Right Speech and Right Action.
Right Livelihood for laypersons is explained in AN 5.177.
Further information can be found in AccessToInsight's virtue (sila) page, including sutta verses.
To practice virtue (sila), the first step is to vow to undertake the training of the five precepts, and then practice them with heedfulness (appamada).
The second step is to adopt this thinking from AN 5.57:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

The third step is to understand more deeply from the Dhamma on Right Livelihood, Right Speech and Right Action, and practise them with heedfulness (appamada).
Also, please see this answer for the question "Are the Five Precepts a gradual training?".


text:
Should a Buddhist be afraid of death?
A friend of mine is a committed Buddhist, a teacher in a group that meets to discuss Buddhist teaching.  He's explained many things about Buddhism to me.  Recently, his father died after a long illness, and he is confident that his father has now gone on to another life that is as good or better than the one just finished.  He comforted his Dad with this as he was dying.
We walk together with some other friends, and I notice that when it comes to crossing roads, my Buddhist friend is more worried than any of them about oncoming cars - even when they are quite distant.  So much so that I said to him:
"If you are sure you'll come back in a better life, why are you so scared of dying?"
He mumbled something about “No one wants to die”, but I wonder, is this a fair question to ask a Buddhist?  I thought it was a reasonable challenge, but now I wonder if the idea of reincarnation helps us accept other people's deaths, but doesn't help us accept our own.  A bit like the sweet lies we tell children to protect them from life's harsh realities.
For myself, I remember years ago being terrified of dying, but now as a Christian I'm happy for God to take me home any day he wants - I know it's an upgrade.  I'm happy to be challenged on this, and I challenge my Christian friends on this too, because it's good to remind each other how good will be God's presence.  But is reincarnation like this for Buddhists?
I'm sure reincarnation isn't taught as Santa-Claus-grade truth.  Where plenty of people say Santa is real, but no one makes their roof strong enough to support 7 reindeer and fully-laden sleigh.  But given that reincarnation is understood as real, is my friend just a bad example, with most Buddhists confident and comfortable about moving to their next life?  Or is his fear of death fairly typical, with only the really enlightened Buddhists being comfortable about their own death?
EDIT: To clarify a few things:

I'm not expecting a Buddhist or anyone else to be reckless or suicidal.  The behaviour I saw was approaching paranoia.  When coming to a road when walking together with 5-6 friends, the non-religious ones and I would cross when there was a suitable gap in the traffic.  But then we would have to wait while our Buddhist friend waited for a much bigger gap.  This occurred frequently.  And when I say 'suitable gap', I mean about average for pedestrians in this city, where the Buddhist has lived all his life.
I'm not saying that this behaviour in a Buddhist invalidates Buddhism at all.  Sometimes I see similar behaviour in Christians, and I will encourage them to take their faith seriously, that if their faith is real there is good stuff after they die, and perhaps remind them of the verse "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain".  But when Atheists behave with this kind of fear I don't say anything, because that makes sense as they have no hope for anything after their death.
I wasn't trying to score a point on my friend or his faith, just encouraging him to live what he believed. I like it when friends challenge me if I act inconsistently, or out of pride or selfishness. It may hurt at the time, but it's an opportunity to grow.
Is this just one individual who is inconsistent about what he believes?  There's many in every faith.  (And who didn't like being  challenged on it - again, nothing unusual there.)  Or is this standard practice?  Should I expect Buddhists to be just as fearful of death as Atheists, or a bit less fearful, or much less?  Does belief in being reincarnated to a new life give some hope in the face of death or none?

A good buddhist with correct view does not need fear death.  A bad buddhist or one with wrong view will fear death.

I am not allowed to give an answer. But from psychology we know that your conscious decision not to fear doesn't much affect your actual feelings. If you have a deep subconscious fear, it is showing up automatically. One can to certain degrees suppress it. But until it is eradicated with psychological or spiritual practices, it will still be present. And fear of death may never be fully eradicated.

@Konchog, I find that correct views make little difference to reality. Many people believe intellectually that flying is safe - but refuse to get in a plane. Many smokers know that smoking is harmful - but still smoke. When you act on the belief it shows that the belief is real. Getting in a plane, or stopping smoking - these show that the belief is real. Otherwise the belief is just words.

@akostadinov I agree with you. Deep fears aren't much affected by conscious decisions. For Christians, when we face death we trust the promise of a God who we know and have found trustworthy in life, just like a small child can go calmly into dangerous places - with his parents. I'm trying to find if there is anything equivalent to this in Buddhism.

Isn't this an obvious question? Should a Christian not "desire a wife of his neighbor", nor steal, nor mention God's name in vain etc. - but some still do.
"A Buddhist" just like "a Christian" is not a concept cast in stone, as all concepts it is an abstraction, a generalization, an approximation, a simplification. Take any real person in any religion and you will find a whole bunch of contradictions. Real life is like that.
It is when we start taking these concepts and labels too seriously, as if they were the reality - that's when we get in trouble even as far as war.
Madhyamika Buddhism teaches us that concepts are an overlay that we project or impute on the otherwise undifferentiated reality. While concepts that try to delineate the world in conveniently labeled boxes can be useful in the relative sense, in the absolute scheme of things the boundaries exist in the mind of the observer, not in objective reality.
Take, for example, New York. Where is New York, exactly? Are the streets "New York" without people? Are the people "New York" without streets? If New York were magically cut out and moved to a desert, complete with its streets and people -  would it still be New York without New Jersey, Connecticut, and the upstate?
Things exist in connection with and relation with other things. Nothing exists by itself, in and of itself.   This includes cities and even persons. Our very natures are determined and defined by our connections and relationships with others. We are a network of interconnections, indeed the entire world is like that. We know this from economics, ecology, and Buddhism.
Those people who understand this, whether they are labeled as Buddhists or Christians would have little fear of death, whether they believe in literal reincarnation or not. I know I'm not this body built from "milk and porridge", while the spanning network of ideas that is writing this text has its beginnings way before baby Andrei was born and will continue long after grandpa Andrei is gone. What is there to be afraid of death? Death of what?
Underneath the grid of boundaries we draw on the world, the actual reality is an interconnected system of currents, flowing since eternity. Some people call it God and I call this the Truth.

This. Thank you for this text!

No this is NOT an obvious question.
My Buddhist friend understands all these concepts - and teaches them - and yet is more afraid of death than people who don't.  However strongly we believe in an "interconnected system of currents", we somehow know that at death we lose our identity, and there is fear in that.

That just means he is yet to master these theories in practice. That's okay, we all are. This part is what I thought was obvious.

The belief in reincarnation takes away the fear of death but it does not mean one has to act in a suicidal way or go on inviting death in any way. Buddhism has a deep respect for life as in this human life only Nirvana which is the ultimate goal of Buddhism possible.
Also, we will have to make the best use of this life we are living to reach as close as possible to the final goal. If we die without realizing Nirvana it will mean we will have to be born again and again you will have to go through all the ordeal till you reach the Dhamma. So, now you have heard the dhamma and practicing it you should be careful not to waste away all the time and opportunities of this life you are living.
As far as your question goes, a Buddhist should not be afraid of death or afraid of anything for that matter but that does not imply rash or unthoughtful behavior. Respect this life. So worrying or I would say being careful about the oncoming vehicles looks like prudent behavior on his part.
After all, we are not thrill-seekers we are Nirvana seekers.

labels yes...death is only my hobby...

Summary ("Bottom Line Up Front")
Buddhists should "fear" (or at least "avoid") other things than death -- for example immorality, heedlessness, causing harm. Here for example is an extract from an essay by Ven. Bodhi:

The conduct of the ideal Buddhist sage, the arahant, necessarily embodies the highest standards of moral rectitude both in the spirit and in the letter, and for him conformity to the letter is spontaneous and natural. The Buddha says that the liberated one lives restrained by the rules of the Vinaya, seeing danger in the slightest faults. He cannot intentionally commit any breach of the moral precepts, nor would he ever pursue any course of action motivated by desire, hatred, delusion, or fear.

The Vinaya (i.e. the Monastic code) is 2000+ years old so it won't have very much to say about speeding cars, but I believe it tells monks to avoid robbers for example: so ...
This may be slightly different in its emphasis from Andrei's answer -- I think doctrine which he learned centred concepts such as "fearlessness" and "fundamental sanity". And I think that maybe he might once have mentioned, that whereas the trainings of the First turning are about (counter-acting) Desire, the subsequent training may be about counter-acting Fear (or hatred or aversion).
Even so, to ask whether a Buddhist "should or shouldn't" fear something might be a bit like asking whether a Christian "should or shouldn't" sin (and perhaps you'll not be wanting to cast that first stone!).
He mumbled something about “No one wants to die”, but I wonder, is this a fair question to ask a Buddhist?
That thing you say he mumbled -- "No one wants to die" -- reminds me of a famous verse, from the famous Dhammapada; I think it's an orthodox axiom:

All tremble at violence;
all fear death.
Putting oneself in the place of another,
one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

It's a matter of kindness, of caution and alertness, and morality (conversely one of the Buddhist precepts is to avoid alcohol because that causes "heedlessness").
As a practical matter, if I were to die, it's been implied to me that would make other people unhappy -- my Mum, for example -- not to mention if I were to kill someone else.
And so I owe it e.g. to family to be prudent.
And I think that the non-violence (or "harmlessness"), which is a duty towards others, is also owed to yourself (because, you're the same as everyone else).
As well as not being "heedless" another Buddhist ideal might be to be "blameless", and to feel no "remorse". Helping his father when he had a terminal illness was a good thing. That doesn't mean that carelessly getting into some stupid traffic accident would be good.
I'm happy to be challenged on this, and I challenge my Christian friends on this too, because it's good to remind each other how good will be God's presence.
I think that Christian doctrine defines "heaven" as being so because it is "close to God" -- I don't think that's mainstream Buddhism.

Meeting the Buddha may be a feature of Pure Land Buddhism (referenced below)
Some might want to be reborn with a beloved wife or husband (see AN 4.55)
But the doctrine of the Buddha, at least as it's described in the Pali texts, isn't centred on a relationship with God (though it does centre spiritual friendship, and a "holy life")

But I'm not sure what characteristics are said to make a Buddhist heaven "heavenly".
Given the Buddhist definition of "suffering" in the First Noble Truth ...

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.

... perhaps they're understood to be realms that are relatively free of suffering.
But is reincarnation like this for Buddhists?
I think there are several views that could plausibly be labelled Buddhist (there are diverse "Buddhist" beliefs, like "Christianity" it has spanned several millennia and continents).

The last time I saw him, he was dying from a terminal illness. May he have been reborn into a more fortunate existence!

I'm not sure whether this view is orthodox.

Buddhist cosmology posits several planes of existence: with heaven, hell, and degrees in between.
It also teaches that one's rebirth is influenced or affected by one's own previous actions or intentions ("karma").
(I think that some although not all Christian churches teach something like this too, with sin leading to hell and virtue rewarded in heaven).
Given these facts, a statement like, "He's in a better life now" could perhaps be his son's saying that his father had been a good man (like there is a Christian idiom, "He has gone to his reward").
Perhaps too, I speculate, this is a hold-over from the experience they shared when he dying. I read this passage from a description of the Buddhist monastic code:

Thus, the Commentary notes, a bhikkhu talking to a dying patient should be
very circumspect in how he chooses his words, focusing not on how to speed up
the dying process but on how to inspire the patient with the following thoughts:

“The attainment of the paths and fruitions is not out of the ordinary for a virtuous person. So, having formed no attachment for such things as your
dwelling, and establishing mindfulness in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, or the
body, you should be heedful in your attention.”

The Vinita-vatthu to Pr 4 contains a number of stories in which bhikkhus comfort a dying bhikkhu by asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his thoughts on the best object possible. The suttas also contain advice on how to encourage patients facing death. See, for example, MN 143, SN 36.7, and AN 6.16.
In all of these cases, the advice is aimed not at precipitating death but at inspiring calm and insight.

So perhaps the son had encouraged the father to reflect on the good he had done in life.
The conversation (the "attainments" and the objects in which he might "establish mindfulness") might be different if his father wasn't a Bhikkhu (i.e. a monk), but some of the principle might have been similar.

There is a form of Buddhism -- Pure Land Buddhism -- which teaches that a future life will be one which will be more propitious than this one for the study of enlightenment; and so the goal of this life is not so explicitly to gain enlightenment but more to gain "merit" so as to allow rebirth in that "heaven".

There's a (perhaps universal, orthodox) doctrine that that all [re]births are ultimately temporary or finite. And so you may be born a human, and live a human lifespan; born an animal for an animal's lifespan; or born in heaven or hell, possibly for a very long life -- but eventually the karma which caused that is exhausted, and so you leave that existence too and are born somewhere else.
This cycle is called Samsara -- that's a natural state of existence -- and a purpose of Buddhism and the Buddha himself was to teach an end to that cycle.
And it might be argued that most lay-people don't want to "end existence" -- that possibly only monks develop the necessary nibbida (which I think is analogous to a Christian "contempt for the World, the Flesh, and the Devil") -- though I should add it's not impossible for a lay-person too to reach at least the first stage of awakening.

There's another view that "rebirth" as it's commonly referred to might be a bit of a simplified (or "Santa Claus") doctrine. And that, more accurately, there is no unchanging "self" (or "soul") -- not just in the so-called "next life" but in this life too.
That kind of doctrine (called Anattā) is what informs answers like these from Ven. Yuttadhammo, here:

The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old.

And here:

kamma doesn't actually go on. kamma means action, and it is finished after it is performed. Nothing actually goes on from one moment to the next; the effects of one moment are felt in the next, and have potential repercussions far into the future.
It is these repercussions that do indeed create a sense of continuity from life to life; a person who ended their life with a certain nature will be reborn with a similar nature, simply due to the causal nature of reality.

"Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind."
MN 19 (Bodhi, trans)

And here:

I've talked about the subject before myself, and the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death - the latter being merely a concept referring to the change from one set of experiences to another. True death only occurs either at every moment or at the experience of nibbana.
In any case, as useful as rebirth may be in reminding us of what's really at stake in our dhamma practice, far more useful is an understanding of the present moment, something that really has little to do with past or future lives.

One aspect that strikes me is that the Buddhist should also consider the driver of the car.
Stepping in harm's way is not kind to the other party, apart from potentially putting both parties in harm. And even if you're certain you can make it across without much hurry, either you may alarm the driver, or something may go wrong (ice, pothole, turned ankle).
It is compassionate to give the driver more room to react if necessary, or avoid disturbing their concentration or giving them cause to suffer anger. This could loosely come under the Bodhisattva vow, for a Mahayana buddhist.
(Without going to extremes of course. I do not know if this is the motivation  for your friend, it's just a point of view)

Excellent altruistic reframing! "All happiness in the world comes from wishing happiness for others. All suffering in the world comes from the desire to have happiness only for oneself." (Shantideva)

@BigMac thanks for the quote ... a little Santideva is always welcome!

That's certainly a kind interpretation of my friend's motivation! Although his real motivation - and based on what he said about it - seemed to be just ordinary self-preservation!

I think you've probably misunderstood your friend's actions. I mean, I myself have no real fear of death, but I would certainly prefer not to get smacked by a speeding car. It's not that it would kill me; it's that it would hurt, with serious potential for a long recovery or permanent debility. As they say, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"; a quote which fits quite well within the dharmic framework.
One can only achieve realization in life, which is why Buddhists tend to take life seriously.
Now in every religion there are sects that look for soteriological shortcuts. Some Christian sects, for instance, hold that the necessary and sufficient condition for salvation is merely 'belief in Jesus': Jesus saves and all sins can be forgiven, and all one has to do is believe. In Buddhism there are sects that teach nirvana can be achieved merely by reciting a particular mantra, or by venerating a teacher or the Buddha. These 'interventionist' sects — those that rely on an appeal to intervention from some transcendent being — are satisfying to many. But they are an easy route. Nothing is asked except that people have 'committed belief' and that they genuinely regret it whenever they mess up (which some seem to do frequently).
It's easy to have no fear when one has relegated the task of salvation to something bigger and wiser; one becomes a child in the parent's house, knowing one might be punished, but that one will always be forgiven. But not all Christians or Buddhists (or people of any faith, for that matter) are comfortable with such a pat, self-oriented solution. Some people want to be good and wise in their own right, working in the world we have instead of hoping and praying for a better one, and achieving that goal takes effort, risk, and fortitude. Growing past fear is far more difficult in that context, but arguably far more rewarding.
Don't be so sure you understand the essence of reincarnation — it's a point of debate even among Buddhist teachers — and don't discount the power of old Saint Nick. As I sometimes go on about, Santa Claus is a parable. He's a way of teaching young children about God, faith, and reverent behavior in an accessible fashion: squishing the awe and glory of the divine into a funny red suit, freely offering sacrifices of cookies and milk, changing omniscience into a little book hat Santa consults when he rewards or punishes (though no one seriously believes he ever punishes). I tend to view reincarnation the same way.

Crossing the street is dangerous. Cars have attempted to run me over as I cross legally with the light. That is a simple fact. I am also losing my eyesight, so the problem is even worse for me.
What is not so simple is fear itself, whose roots run deep and tangle us up in knots. The Buddha is quite direct in his instruction here regarding fear:

AN5.3:1.1: “Mendicants, when a mendicant has five qualities they live unhappily in the present life—with distress, anguish, and fever—and when the body breaks up, after death, they can expect a bad rebirth.
AN5.3:1.2: What five?
AN5.3:1.3: It’s when a mendicant is faithless, shameless, imprudent, lazy, and witless.

So when you see a Buddhist hesitating, they may simply be introspecting into the roots of their own fear as they practice with each opportunity to let go of that fear in different ways.
A simple way to help your friend is to stay back and simply ask, "shall we cross together, my friend?"  And with that inclusive, gentle and peaceful way you might help your friend take yet another step in that long long path to the other shore.

ChrisW has given a really good answer, and pointed out that Buddhism encompasses a wide range of beliefs. IMHO the range is wider than it is in Christianity. There are two broad families, characterized by Jiriki and tariki.

tariki (他力 "other power", "outside help") includes the Pure Land schools that ChrisW mentioned. As with Christianity, tariki invokes a Savior.
Jiriki (自力, one's own strength is the Japanese Buddhist term for self power, the ability to achieve liberation or enlightenment (in other words, to reach nirvana) through one's own efforts. Zen is possibly the best known jiriki school, and many samurai practiced Zen. If you're looking for Buddhists who stride confidently into traffic without fear, Zen may be a better bet than Pure Land.

This is a good categorization, however I would suggest that the end result is contrary. Those who take enlightenment into their own hands (jiriki) would fear death because they have not accomplished their objective (enlightenment/samadhi). Those who rely on a savior (tariki), if they do not have doubt, usually would not fear death, even if they have not achieved any of the criteria for Buddhist cultivation.

@Ahmed I don't think there is an obligation to attain enlightenment in this life. Consider a samurai who practices zen, e.g. this scene from Yojimbo. He practices detachment, flings himself fearlessly into battles, kills his enemies, and survives every time. He is willing to perform seppuku if he ever screws up, but he never needs to. Why should he fear death? He can always achieve satori next time.

true, I never said there is such a requirement (or even a capacity to do so in the example you have just outlined).

Yes, but it depends on how you define "afraid".
If you define "afraid" as a form of paralysis. inaction, and trauma then NO, that is not what Buddhism is about or any of the eastern practices.
If you define "afraid" as a form of anxiety and stress leading to contemplation and ACTION (spiritual practice)... then YES, every single genuine Buddhist of all genuine sects use the relative reality of death as a motivation for practice, at least in the early stages before they are Enlightened (i.e. have achieved initial stages of Immortality/Nirvana/Buddhahood).
All the basic Four Noble Truths, 3 Characteristics, and contemplations point to impermanence as a motivating factor for the Practice which leads to the end of forced rebirth and retribution.
If we look into the Fourth Noble Truth, the Eightfold path, the hallmark of Buddhism, we will find that Right View expounds this.
Right View has two aspects, mundane and super-mundane.
This super-mundane aspect teaches about the 33 realms of existence and how we are essentially stuck in karmic loops across the various realms of existence based on our karmic action, deservedly-so. Frequently, this process is unfortunate and one ends up in hell for "no good reason" where one can end up for a long time until one cultivates and develops "higher" character and then one can end up going to higher realms... wherein one, having forgotten the past lives and relishing higher comforts, again commits actions to bring one down to lower realms. The cycle continues, ad naseum, for endless eons. Even if one bumped into spiritual cultivation (without achieving a permanent Enlightenment/Awakening).
Hence, this super-mundane Right View gives us the proper motivation for the rest of the Eightfold Path. Ultimately the goal is to escape this "forced rebirth" of cycling within the wheel of rebirth since we can neither fully recollect nor control this process currently... and achieve Nirvana.
However, contrary to the common Early Buddhist understanding: Nirvana is not an "annihilation" per se or a total end.
To be unusually direct: the esoteric Buddhist circles expound: there exists three bodies that one cultivates in the progression of all spiritual cultivation: dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya. These latter two refer to a semi-immortal etheric body which is developed through advanced stages of practice, after one has generally mastered and developed the body and mind.
This separate body (not flesh) is essentially one's real self and becomes the mastermind which can control all of one's now voluntary incarnations.
This is also known as the process of cultivating the spiritual "immortal fetus" in Taoism.
This is considered initial success in spiritual cultivation and should be the point at which one can finally relinquish fear of death, because one is no longer painfully stuck in the fiery trap of rebirth (especially the 6 lower planes of existence) along with all of one's previous family and friends, whom one can now assist.
It is arguable that every single genuine religion talks about this same "immortal body" including Hinduism and Taoism but also Christianity and Islam (symbolically so). Inter-religious evidence on this can be found in the articles on meditationexpert.com... the author is actually offering his book Bodhisattva Yoga (pre-published copy) currently free, which beautifully describes all this non-denominationally and comprehensively... including the long, near-infinite road after becoming this Bodhisattva...
However, none of this super-mundane Right View is necessary, including its concomitant beliefs in reincarnation. in order to progress on one's spiritual cultivation.
The "mundane" levels of Right View also give the same argument on an undeniable, smaller-scale, microcosmic level:

There exists much rampant impermanence and lack of control within our body and mind.
It is due to unnecessary craving/attachments.
This is embarrassing because I should be king of this body and mind.
How about we learn to be aware of and guide our body and mind?

That is the mundane-level 4 Noble Truths in a nutshell and arguably much better for some people who may mis-use the super-mundane viewpoints I outlined.
This is what our Gautama Buddha originally espoused and focused on, anyway and he would shirk super-mundane elaborations a lot of time.
Ironically, this unreligious flavor of Buddhism and the calm, self-control, wisdom, and good behavior may end up giving some people more benefit post-mortem anyway as a spirit. (especially the crowd that thinks chanting a few words once a week is sufficient to have a good after-life)
:cue Tibetan Book of the Dead:
In our age of information however, I think it is is important to understand both viewpoints and be armed on the spiritual path with knowledge, especially as one progresses through some of the weird mystical experiences... with few genuine masters around.
One has to achieve the Ultimate Aim or at least semi-permanent fruits of cultivation... motivated by the great awareness of death and impermanence of this body, it's memories, learnings, wealth, friends... and also these StackExchange points. ;-)

Yes and very needed to often reflect on it as it is the drive to become a real "Buddhist", and eventually free of reasons to have to fear it. Only one complete isn't a fool when not fearing the next becoming, birth, and with it: death.
Householder-equanimity is a fools suicide.

Maybe your friend wasn't fear of death, it could be fears of:
-not accomplishing what he wanted to accomplish in this life time?
-injuries?
Maybe your friend was more risk adverse than anyone else?
By being a Buddhist doesn't mean you can be reckless in your current life and leave everything to the next life. Reincarnation is not taught to be a backup plan or anything, it is just the way of things.
Your friend seems to focus on the here and now, and be wholesome in the here and now, which is good. I don't see any of that conflicts with being a Buddhist.

Buddhists, just like everyone else, are afraid to die. But they are afraid for different reasons.
According to Lord Budhdha there are 31 planes of existence we can be re-incarnated:

Realm of Formlessness (Arupaloka) consists of four planes of brahmas who have no physical body, consisting entirely of mind, but
who may create a physical body if they want to be seen. They are not
completely free from the fetters of suffering (dukkha), but the dukkha
experienced here is much less intense than that suffered in the
Rupaloka. These brahmas are unable to hear the teachings of the Buddha
(dhamma) so they can never become enlightened.

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatana bhuṃ (Realm of neither perception nor non-perception)
Ākiñcaññāyatana  bhuṃ (Realm of nothingness)
Viññānaññcāyatana bhuṃ (Realm of infinite consciousness)
Ākāsānaññcāyatana  bhuṃ (Realm of infinite space)

Realm of Form (Rupaloka)  is inhabited by brahmas who have a physical body but do not enjoy sensual pleasures, and it is a place of
less intense dukkha. This realm consists of 16 planes inhabited by
Rupa brahmas divided into four categories according to their status of
meditative absorption (jhana).  These Rupa brahmas can become
enlightened if they come to know the dhamma.
Catuttha jhana bhuṃ (Fourth jhana realm): consisting of seven planes, of which the first five are called Suddhavasa or the heavens
of purity, where only the enlightened ones at the anagami (non-
returner) stage can reborn.

Akaniṭṭha bhuṃ (Realm of peerless devas)
Sudassī bhuṃ (Realm of clear-sighted devas)
Sudassā bhuṃ (Realm of beautiful devas)
Atappā bhuṃ (Realm of serene devas)
Avihā bhuṃ (Realm of durable devas)
Asaññasatta bhuṃ (Realm of mindless devas)
Vehapphala bhuṃ (Realm of very fruitful devas)

Tatiya jhana bhuṃ (Third jhana realm): these three planes harbor brahmas who have a body with an aura.

Subhakiṇṇā bhuṃ (Realm of devas with radiant glory)
Appamāṇasubhā bhuṃ (Realm of devas with unbounded glory)
Parittasubhā bhuṃ (Realm of devas with limited glory)

Dutiya jhana bhuṃ (Second jhana realm): the brahmas of these three planes have a body with different degrees of luster.

Ābhassara bhuṃ (Realm of devas with streaming radiance)
Appamāṇabhā bhuṃ (Realm of devas with unbounded radiance)
Parittābhā bhuṃ (Realm of devas with limited glory)

Pathama jhana bhuṃ (First jhana realm): the planes of the lowest grade of Rupa brahmas.

Mahābrahmā bhuṃ (Realm of the great Brahma)
Brahmaparorita bhuṃ (Realm of the Brahma’s ministers)
Brahmapārisajja bhuṃ (Realm of the Brahma’s retinue)

The third level, the Realm of Desire (Kamaloka), contains seven
planes of happiness (six heavenly planes of devas and the human plane)
and four planes of unhappiness.
The six heavenly planes

Paranimmitavassavatī bhuṃ (Realm of devas who enjoy sensory pleasures created by others for them)
Nimmānarati bhuṃ (Realm of devas who delight in creating)
Tusita bhuṃ (Realm of devas of  happiness and contentment)
Yāmā bhuṃ (Realm of blissful existence)
Tāvatimsa bhuṃ (Realm of the thirty-three gods)
Cātummahārājika bhuṃ (Heaven of four great kings)

The plane of humans

Manussa bhuṃ (human beings). Both dukkha (suffering) and sukha (happiness) are found here, but this plane is the most fortunate of
all because it is the only sphere in which moral initiative occurs and
Enlightenment can be achieved. The
beings here are endowed with a measure of merit and can find
protection on their own. They can listen to and learn all the
teachings of the Buddha. Bodhisattvas prefer the human realm as it is
the best plane in which to serve the world and perfect the requisites
of Buddhahood.

The four planes of deprivation (Apāya) These lowest four unhappy planes are infernal states, in which beings pay the price for akusala
(demeritorious acts). Buddhists believe that beings are born as
animals on account of evil kamma. Sprits and ghosts possess deformed
physical forms of varying magnitude, generally invisible to the naked
eye.

Asura loka (demon world): the inhabitants of this plane are powerful and are opposed  to devas.

Peta loka (world of spirits and hungry ghosts): this plane is known as the “state of woe.” People share their merits with these beings
when they do good deeds.

Tiracchāna loka (animal world): this is not a pleasant plane as beings have to search for food and fight each other to stay alive.

Niraya (world of hell): There are eight different degrees of punishment: Sanjiva, Kalasutra, Sanghata, Roruva, Maharoruva, Tapana,
Mahatapana and Avici. There is no happiness, only suffering, in this
realm and it is the worst place to be reborn.
Above classification was adapted based on this article.

Out of the above planes any plane that we cannot hear, learn and practice Dhamma are considered places unsuitable to be born (by a Buddhist) as there is no path to Nirvana from these planes. To make matters worse, some of these plans have lifetimes which are extremely long (i.e.- Arupaloka). While you live in these plans aeons will pass on human world where you miss listening and learning Dhamma from a Lord Budhdha himself, thus prolonging your sansara (the cycle of birth and death). Some planes have only suffering and someone who die in these planes are re-born in the same plane over and over (i.e. - Niraya) thus prolonging Sansara as well.
In which plane you will be re-incarnated is a function of many variables and there is no way for us to predict it. Unless you are in sovan, sakurdagami, or anagami state, there is no guarantee that you won't be re-born in The four planes of deprivation (Apāya). So, death is scary for Buddhists as well.

This is well explained by the Khemaka Sutta below.
A person may be a stream enterer and have full understanding of the teachings, but still the residual "I am" conceit and passion for existing (and consequently the fear of non-existing) may linger, until he reaches full liberation.

“Suppose, friends, a cloth has become soiled and stained, and its
owners give it to a laundryman. The laundryman would scour it evenly
with cleaning salt, lye, or cowdung, and rinse it in clean water. Even
though that cloth would become pure and clean, it would still retain a
residual smell of cleaning salt, lye, or cowdung that had not yet
vanished. The laundryman would then give it back to the owners. The
owners would put it in a sweet-scented casket, and the residual smell
of cleaning salt, lye, or cowdung that had not yet vanished would
vanish.
“So too, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five
lower fetters, still, in relation to the five aggregates subject to
clinging, there lingers in him a residual conceit ‘I am,’ a desire ‘I
am,’ an underlying tendency ‘I am’ that has not yet been uprooted.
Sometime later he dwells contemplating rise and fall in the five
aggregates subject to clinging: ‘Such is form, such its origin, such
its passing away; such is feeling … such is perception … such are
volitional formations … such is consciousness, such its origin, such
its passing away.’ As he dwells thus contemplating rise and fall in
the five aggregates subject to clinging, the residual conceit ‘I am,’
the desire ‘I am,’ the underlying tendency ‘I am’ that had not yet
been uprooted—this comes to be uprooted.”
Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89)

"I remember the funerals of my childhood. They were all pretty hopeless affairs, with a very strong sense of powerlessness. God was supposed to be loving, and yet he’d taken our loved ones away, sometimes in very miserable ways, and we had to accept that. We had no idea where they were going, especially in the versions of Christianity where they teach predestination. You have no power at all to have an effect on where you’re going, and there’s nothing the people who are remaining can do to help. They simply have to accept. Whereas in Buddhist funerals, even though there is some sadness, there’s a very strong sense that you know what you can do: You do meritorious things and dedicate the merit to the deceased. And you know that it will be of help. You may not know one hundred percent, but you have a strong sense of confidence. Reliable people, the kind of people who can know these kinds of things, say that, yes, you can help people who’ve passed on.

Then you look at your own life. You realize that soon it’s going to be your turn, and you’ve got to be prepared. And you can prepare. Ajaan Lee compares it to knowing that you’re going to have to be suddenly sent to a foreign country. So you make your preparations: You change your money into the currency of that country, you learn their language, and you get your passport.

In his description, your changing the currency means being generous. As the Buddha said, the things you give away are the things that are going to be saved. It’s like being in a burning house. The things you try to keep in the burning house are going to get burned. But if you take them out of the burning house, they get saved. Giving things away gets them out of the burning house, and the generosity you develop will go with you into future lifetimes. Getting your passport is like practicing the precepts, developing virtue. And then learning the language of where you’re going means learning how to meditate."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "You Are Not Powerless" https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Published/Meditations11/200429_You_Are_Not_Powerless.pdf