What is the best way to develop a mind observation habit? Different spiritual traditions, including, but not limited to Buddhism, emphasize that it is important to always keep in mind that one's thoughts and emotions do not constitute the essence of a person.

That is:

When some thought crosses my mind,
makes me like or dislike something (emotion),
then these thoughts and emotions are not my true self in that they come and go like they want (similar to breathing, blood circulation and other bodily processes, which most people can't consciously control). The true self is the entity that observes them.

Theory and practice shows that realization 3 often leads to an increase in happiness (e. g. I feel pain, I acknowledge the thought I'd rather prefer to experience pleasure and the emotion of sadness as inevitable by-products of the activity of my brain, which usually eliminates suffering despite presence of pain) and - as a result - higher productivity (less time and energy is wasted on useless thoughts emotions).

Right now, I occasionally do the whole process (observe thoughts, observe emotions they've generated, remember that they aren't my true self), probably when the pain gets too hard.

I want to develop a habit of doing this routine so that I'm automatically doing those 3 steps all the time (as frequently as possible). As a result I expect my stress resistance (ability to do productive work in suboptimal conditions) to dramatically increase.

What routine can I use to develop that habit (apart from the process described below), ideally scientifically proven?

Notes:

I need some practical, actionable recipe for developing the desired habit, which is better than the option below. I do not need some theoretical, philosophical stuff.
If your routine is well-suited for people with tendency towards premature action and ADHD, it's even better.

Standard habit formation process

Install on your mobile phone an application, which vibrates every 20 minutes.
Every day in the morning, turn on the application.
Whenever you feel the vibration, do the three steps (observe thoughts, observe emotions they've generated, remember that they aren't my true self).
Before you go to sleep, turn off the application.
Repeat steps 2-4 for at least 40 days.

Update 1 (05.01.2016 12:13 MSK): Below you can find a selection of techniques, which seem to help me observe the mind. I don't guarantee that they will work for anyone else. And I don't guarantee that it really helps me - it just seems to help.

Morning observation ritual

Write out at least 10 thoughts that are running in your head.
For each of them do the 3 steps (observe the thought, observe the emotions it generates and remember that you aren't either of them).

Imagine the thoughts on a diagram

It helps to imagine the different thoughts as diagrams with time on the horizontal axis and the intensity of a particular thought on the vertical one.

Music

Some music seems to be more conducive to mind observation than others. I noticed it when listening to the Focus at will music, section Focus Spa.

I'm not affiliated with Focus at will, I'm not getting any remuneration for this and you probably can get the same music in other ways.

Well this is a suggestions question because your mileage may vary based on what you do and what's your environment. I'd suggest to use the most natural way available.

The main idea here is to have a reminder in place. For this maybe you can use the entrances at your home or workplace to be a reminder. Or an action like drinking coffee or water or using the toilet. Or you can mark a person you see around you everyday.

Side by side, cultivate a more natural inside reminder. Can't beat this one. This could be autosuggestion like telling yourself to be mindful and relax. Or it could be some action like scratching your head or ear. Or it could be any time you are walking. And you could use rubbing your knees when you're sitting.
But you see all this requires predisposed awareness. Try to be aware of your body movements. This will certainly help in future.

In formal meditation, cultivate awareness of your sitting and the environment by using the sounds or smell or feel of the place. This would help in cultivating general environmental awareness in other places also. In the sense, this is more habit-forming.

These are some tips. But beware of the fact that any external thing you use, should not become a crutch such that when you are away from it, you lose all reminders altogether or you cannot be mindful at all.


What is the meaning of Anicca and Anatta? Most of the English translation I read, Anatta is translated as not-self and Anicca as impermanence.
However many Sri Lankan Buddhist monks do not agree with this translation.
They say it is a miss translation by Buddhagosha.
According to many Buddhist monks, it appears, Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate. Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate. Is this true?

It is 'anatta' that means our inability to control the five aggregate, as found in the Pali as follows, where the word 'anicca' is not found at all:

  Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, anattā. Rūpañca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe: ‘evaṃ me rūpaṃ
  hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ
  anattā, tasmā rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe: ‘evaṃ me
  rūpaṃ hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti.

  Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to disease, and it would be possible to have it
  of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because
  form is nonself, form leads to disease, and it is not possible to
  have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’

  SN 22.59

It is 'anicca' that means the futile nature ('dukkha') of the five aggregates, as also explained in SN 22.59:

  "What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent (niccaṃ) or
  impermanent (aniccaṃ)?"

  "Impermanent (aniccaṃ), O Lord (O Bhante)."

  "Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or
  satisfactory?"

  "Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

  "Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is
  it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my
  self (attā)'?"

  "Indeed, not that, O Lord."

Anatta (not-self) is the recognition that conditioned things (such as the five aggregates) do not belong to you (i.e., are not "mine") and cannot be an intrinsic permanent "you" (i.e., are not "me") due to their impermanent (anicca) nature.


Lord Buddha descending from heavens? This question is about these images:

This incident (depicted) happened after Lord Buddha visited a certain Deva realm.

Can someone provide any sutta or sutra reference?
If you can, please explain the event and the drawings?

One of those pictures is shown on this page: Lhabab Duchen – the Day Buddha Descended from Tushita Heavens:

  This article from Bhutan Journals describes the iconography of the Buddha Shakyamuni Descending from Tushita Heavens to the Earth.

A version of this story is told/included in the Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā (verse 181):

  On return from the Tavatimsa deva world, the Buddha uttered Verse (181) of this book at Sankassanagara, in reply to Thera Sariputta's words of welcome.

There's a more detailed version of this story somewhere else (I don't know where), for example Wikipedia's Lhabab Duchen article includes details about a "triple ladder" (shown in all the pictures):

  He was exhorted by his follower and representative Maudgalyayana to return, and after a long debate and under a Full Moon agreed to return. He returned to earth a week later by a special triple ladder prepared by Viswakarma, the god of machines. This event is considered to be one of the eight great deeds of the Buddha.


Why mind is all set to achieve something unknown during meditation? Sitting in front of the rising sun, observing atmosphere and self. Mostly all of come to me in a very unexpected way. Yes, it is easy to achieve what he and a few of holy them have achieved. Is it not a kind of craving?

There is craving and intention. Enlightened people had intention but not craving to achieve their goal which is what you should aim to develop. Craving for the goal also will set you back.


Does Buddhism cause longevity? In this book about Bodhisattvas it says that  traditionally Buddhism can cause longevity in a way that parallels the longevity that is sought after by Taoism. This kind of longevity arises in the same way that the psychic powers do i.e. it is a natural result of practice but it isn't the end point and it isn't something that should be grasped after. This is the first time I have heard of Buddhism in connection with longevity. Has anyone got any further details about this and perhaps some textual references where this is referred to?

Please note - I'm not interested in scientific studies or connections to well-being/stress reduction and similar in this question. I want to focus on the texts and traditions rather than more modern studies.

Many Thanks

Quoting from Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha,

  And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and
  brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if
  he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of
  it. [21] The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata
  could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the
  end of it."
  But the Venerable Ananda was unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the significant prompting, given by the Blessed One. As though his
  mind was influenced by Mara, [22] he did not beseech the Blessed One:
  "May the Blessed One remain, O Lord!. May the Happy One remain, O
  Lord, throughout the world-period, for the welfare and happiness of
  the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well
  being, and happiness of gods and men!"
  And when for a second and a third time the Blessed One repeated his words, the Venerable Ananda remained silent.
  Then the Blessed One said to the Venerable Ananda: "Go now, Ananda, and do as seems fit to you."

So the above is a textual reference.

Off-topic to the question, this (i.e. not having asked the Buddha to remain) is a reason why Ananda was reproached at the first council after the Buddha's death. Later in the same sutta Ananda realizes what the Buddha had been saying and asks him then (asks him three times), but the Buddha says no:

  And the Blessed One answered, saying: "Enough, Ananda. Do not entreat the Tathagata, for the time is past, Ananda, for such an entreaty."

and,

  "So also at Vesali, Ananda, at different times the Tathagata has spoken to you, saying: 'Pleasant, Ananda, is Vesali; pleasant are the shrines of Udena, Gotamaka, Sattambaka, Bahuputta, Sarandada, and Capala. Whosoever, Ananda, has developed... Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it.'

  "But you, Ananda, were unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the significant prompting, given you by the Tathagata, and you did not entreat the Tathagata to remain. For if you had done so, Ananda, twice the Tathagata might have declined, but the third time he would have consented. Therefore, Ananda, the fault is yours; herein you have failed.
  "Yet, Ananda, have I not taught from the very beginning that with all that is dear and beloved there must be change, separation, and severance? Of that which is born, come into being, is compounded and subject to decay, how can one say: 'May it not come to dissolution!' There can be no such state of things. And of that, Ananda, which the Tathagata has finished with, that which he has relinquished, given up, abandoned, and rejected — his will to live on — the Tathagata's word has been spoken once for all: 'Before long the Parinibbana of the Tathagata will come about. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away.' And that the Tathagata should withdraw his words for the sake of living on — this is an impossibility.


Request for explanation on heart sutta This what I read part of heart sutta states;

So, in emptiness, there is no body,
no feeling, no thought,
no will, no consciousness.
There are no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined.

apparently it is about the death of being to me.Also this description perfectly match and experience in coma or unconsciousness state of an individual.

can I get proper and profound explanation for above?

As Mishu mentioned, the oldest copy we have is in Classical Chinese. Even though many of the characters of the sutra still exist in modern Chinese and Japanese, there are subtleties that are very hard to translate. The most difficult word to convey into English is the word translated as "no", 無 (wu in Chinese, mu in Japanese). It's not exactly as our word for "no" or "not", the character for this in Chinese is 不 (bu). Both appear in the sutra:

色不異空，空不異色
form does not differ from the void, and the void does not differ from form.

and

無眼耳鼻舌身意，無色聲香味觸法
no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, nor perception; no form, sound, smell, taste, tangible objects nor objects of mind;

So there must be a difference in meaning, otherwise they would have used the same character in both cases.
The origin of the character 無 is a pictogram of a man holding something in both hands:

This visible etymology is lost in the modern simplified version of the character: 无.
In Classical texts, it means a complete absence of anything, which in English we would equate with void.
The character in the earliest translations chosen for the Sanskrit shunya (emptiness) is usually 空, the etymology being a sky without clouds. It is therefore closer to describing the emptiness of a cup than total void. You may wonder why they chose 空 over 無, since the meaning of the latter is closer to shunya. The reason for this is probably because 無 was already used in Daoist texts, like the paradox of acting without intention (wu wei 無為). Zen (Chan) Buddhists in China borrowed this concept to help understand related ideas in Buddhism (specifically the limitations of language to capture meaning and the lack of substantial being in the cosmos). So Mu in Japanese has fundamentally this meaning: there is no substantiality to things, and language does not capture all possible descriptions of reality.
This is how it's used in the Heart Sutra: it doesn't literally mean there are no senses, it means something like:

無眼: seeing without conceptualizing it (like the difference between to see and to observe, the latter being a conscious action)
無耳: hearing without listening
etc.


How to stop rejecting / avoiding things? I'm getting aversion when someone do things that I don't like. This happens when a person do and not on natural things like rain. But It is hard to recorgnise it as aversion because that aversion is not towards a person. I just don't like certain actions that affect me (Only the things that affects me in someway). I don't want to hit someone or to hurt someone. So I always try to avoid such situations. But It is not always possible and that avoiding proccess makes suffering, makes doubts. So, How can I stop avoiding things ? How can I practise more acceptance ? How can I face anything without getting aversion?

Very good question, focused on real and useful problem.
Mind generates aversion when things go contrary to what it believes is "right". This belief is called "attachment". For example you believe that only certain weather is good and that it should be that same weather most of the time.
So the first technique is to remember this as soon as you feel aversion (basically, as soon as you feel emotionally disturbed):     "what is my attachment in this case?". Once you identify the attachment you should think: "this attachment is a cause of suffering and an obstacle to Enlightenment, I shall let it go". And then you should make effort to let go of that attachment. "I shall not be attached to what I think is good weather. I should enjoy all weather as it is."
The second technique is to turn problems into blessings by changing your perspective. Here's how. Every time you have some unpleasant experience, tell to yourself: "this is actually a blessing because it gives me chance to practice Dharma and reach Enlightenment." Thinking like this will immediately turn a negative experience into a positive, happy event. Instead of experiencing suffering your mind will be elated.
Initially, you may tend to keep forgetting these instructions. If that happens you will react automatically as you always did. That's okay, keep practicing, keep trying to remember. (This is called mindfulness.)
Eventually you will reach a point when the problems themselves will serve as automatic reminders. At which point the game is won: what was previously triggering aversion will now trigger recollection of Dharma.


Why does my mind naturally wander? Before sitting for meditation I got a few strange questions: why does my mind even wander? What does my mind want, and can it ever be satisfied completely? Can anybody please explain this to me?

Every life form is born in the world due to craving. Within life forms, there are seeds, such as sperm cells, which are propelled by craving. Parents of children engage in sexual intercourse & reproduce new life propelled by craving. New born children are born with craving to eat, craving to be safe, craving for love, craving for pleasure, etc. The mind wanders due to craving. This 'wandering' is called 'samsara'.


The Buddha's struggle with the first absorption I need help reading the footnotes from the following passage in
the book Satipatthana, and finding the suttas which they reference.

  in one instance at least, the Upakkilesa Sutta, the Buddha gave a detailed account of his own struggle to attain the first absorption.41 This passage leaves no doubt that the Buddha himself encountered considerable difficulty when he attempted to attain the first absorption, even though in his early youth he had already once experienced it.

  Analayo. Satipatthana (Kindle Locations 1196-1199).

Footnote 41 says

  M III 162, where only after having consecutively overcome a whole series of mental obstructions (cf. in detail page 199, footnote 73) he was able to attain the first jhāna. Cf. also A IV 439, which reports his struggle to overcome sensuality in order to be able to develop jhāna.

What sutta does M III 162 reference? (as Majjhima Nikaya contains 152)

And footnote 42 says

  M I 246. Possibly his ability to enter the first jhāna so easily at this particular moment during his early youth was related to samatha practice undertaken in a previous life, an ability lost during his adolescence and later sensual indulgence as a young man, so that he had to develop it anew.

To what does M I 246 reference?

Go to https://suttacentral.net/mn and follow the 2nd set of sutta references.

M I 246 is within MN 36.

M III 162 is within MN 128.

The above said, Analayo's ideas about MN 128 are probably wrong. MN 128 is about a certain dilemma of Venerable Anuruddha, who later was renowned for his psychic powers. The certain dilemma or subject matter of MN 128 is 'obhāsañceva sañjānāma dassanañca rūpānaṃ', namely, 'perception of light and seeing of forms'. MN 128 appears to be about the coming to be of a psychic power rather than about the 1st jhana. Here, the Buddha gives an account of his own struggle with what appears to be a naturally occurrence of a physic power (which will not occur with every meditator, such as Venerable Sariputta, who did not have any psychic powers). Therefore, MN 128 does not appear to be about the Buddha's struggle with the first absorption.


Processing of Emotions I would like to ask a question about the psychology of emotions in Buddhism.
I am aware, from reading books on this topic, that emotions are complex phenomena distinct from vedana, or feelings. But what exactly are they? And how does one process such emotions?

Similarly, I wonder which method is most conducive to either processing an existing emotion, or release and allow unfelt (repressed/suppressed) emotions to arise.

I am particularly curious about the relationship of these meditative techniques towards emotions: (1) breathing meditation (2) visualization (3) body awareness
(4) reappraising/re-framing cognitively.

Lastly, I wonder whether it would be more beneficial to focus on feelings (vedana) or emotions themselves as an emphasis.

Thank you for any response.

Correct, emotions are complex psychosomatic events, of which vedana is but a small component.

For the purposes of liberation, Buddhism differentiates between emotions in their affecting or intoxicating function, and emotions experienced as a result.

The first type are called klesha, they are traditionally defined by example, as want, hate, delusion, and all kinds of combinations of the three. (For the sake of accuracy I should say that not all kleshas are exactly emotional in nature... they can be strong mental concepts skewing or clouding one's interpretative and goal-making functions.)

The second type are various shades of "agreable" and "disagreable" experiences, including of course the cornerstone of Buddhism, duhkha and its false opposite, sukha. Again, I'm mixing all kinds of stuff in the same bucket here - some of these experiences are primarily somatic in nature and so would classify as vedana, and some are mostly mental - I suppose the most accurate way of saying would be that they are different mixes of mental and somatic states.

In Buddhism it is generally understood that emotions are conditioned by mental dispositions such as attachments, aversions, prejudices, assumptions, generalizations etc - which in their order come from past experience. Plus, the everpresent component is one's current attitude, conditioned by one's level of insight or ignorance about the nature of phenomena and mind.

The methods for working with emotions vary from one school to another. Traditional summary from later schools, is that earlier schools like Theravada primarily worked with (undesirable) emotions through either suppressing them or switching attention away to a different topic, -- from this we go to Mahayana schools which are said to work with emotions through underlying mental dispositions - by deconstructing the ego complex, and removing attachments, generalizations, assumptions etc. culminating in realization of Emptiness -- and then on to Vajrayana schools which are said to work with emotions directly in their psychosomatic form as energies, by using visualizations and yoga-inspired psychosomatic exercises. This stereotypical classification is obviously wrong, as in reality all schools use combination of all three approaches, presented in various ways. Indeed, if you think about it from psychological perspective, the three approaches are merely different embodiments of the same underlying principle. Especially as it comes to producing desirable emotional states, the schools show surprising unity of approaches, each presenting in their unique style.

To get to your specific questions,

  I wonder which method is most conducive to either processing an existing emotion, or release and allow unfelt (repressed/suppressed) emotions to arise.

There is no single method that works for all people in all circumstances, otherwise Buddhism would be a very simple thing. There are cases when suppressing/avoidance /distraction works best, practiced either momentarily or over a long term - there are cases when experiencing emotion in full, without analyzing/feeding its mental stimulus, works best - and then there are cases where analysis of assumptions&attachments is the most effective.

As for unfelt emotions, I think I can safely say that most schools agree that meditation is a very effective practice to help suppressed emotions come up. Also, in Mahayana and Vajrayana schools teachers use all kinds of scenario-based improvisations to have the apprentice meet their suppressed emotion or assumption face-to-face.

  I am particularly curious about the relationship of these meditative techniques towards emotions: (1) breathing meditation (2) visualization (3) body awareness (4) reappraising/re-framing cognitively.

To me, (1) breathing meditation is a great way to connect with the body and get in touch with the types of emotions stored in the body that are so deeply habituated as to be effectively unconscious.

(2) As I said, visualization is an active generation technique that may be used to directly stimulate certain emotions. These are primarily practiced in Tibetan Vajrayana schools. These techniques range from, should I say, abstract psychosomatic visualizations (colors, shapes, letters - imagined over various parts of one's body) - to vivid impersonations that involve imagining oneself as a certain persona or deity. complete with not only costume and appearance but most importantly the thoughts, emotions, and attitude that such character would have experienced.

(3) Body awareness is practiced in all schools, usually on beginner's stages - although the significance of this technique cannot be overemphasized. My various teachers were fond of reminding importance of posture, gait, comfort, speed of movement, grace, and generally good connection with the body.

(4) Reappraising/re-framing is taught in all schools, both in form of traditional frameworks, and custom-tailored teacher/student 1:1 work. Theravada, Mahayana/Zen, and Vajrayana has their own favorite themes and contexts that are too numerous and too deep to review in any details here.

  Lastly, I wonder whether it would be more beneficial to focus on feelings (vedana) or emotions themselves as an emphasis.

My personal advice is to treat emotions as two separate phenomena: bodily feelings, and mental dispositions that cause them - and to work with each separately, one at a time. Treating emotion as single unit ("here is what happened and now I feel this") can lead to projecting the emotion onto the world ("I can't live without my GF who made me heartbroken; or I hate her etc.") - so in effect you are creating a realm and inhabit it with your imaginary self, at the same time declaring oneself a helpless victim of situation. Instead, treating emotion as bodily feeling + mental disposition allows one to take on master's role and be in charge of one's mind and emotions.


Is there a source for the story about the sun being covered by the cloud? A common analogy about mindfulness I hear about is that the wisdom is like the sun. It is always shining there, but is frequently clouded. Your job is to avoid as much cloud as possible, and when there is no cloud left, you are enlightened.

Where is this analogy first use? Is there a sutta for this? If not, and if you have heard about this too, can you name the source that you first knew it?

it is not exactly what you want, but first there is this

  "Just as, monks, from time to time a strong wind scatters and causes
  to vanish a great mass of clouds that has arisen, even so a monk who
  cultivates and makes much of the seven limbs of wisdom from time to
  time scatters and causes to vanish the ill, unprofitable states that
  rise and rise again.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.46.099-110.wood.pts.htm#p107

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.46.099-110.wood.pts.htm#p106

what you seek is found in Theragatha

  Who once was heedless,[1] but later is not,    brightens the world
  like the moon set free from a cloud.

  His evil-done deed[2] is replaced with skillfulness:    he brightens
  the world    like the moon set free from a cloud.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/kd/thag/thag.255.than.ati.htm

and in MN http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/mn/mn.112.olds.bd.htm

  Then, by letting go these five bindups, afflictions of the heart,
  crippling to wisdom, separating myself from sense pleasures,
  separating myself from unskillful things, with rethinking, with
  reminiscing,[13] there came the pleasurable Enthusiasm born of
  solitude inhabiting the first burning.

  Then, rethinking and reminiscing calmed, inwardly impassive, become
  unified in heart, without rethinking, without reminiscing, there came
  the pleasurable Enthusiasm born of serinity inhabiting the second
  burning.

  Then, Enthusiasm fading, living detached, recollected and self-aware,
  there came the experiencing of the bodily pleasure inhabiting the
  third burning of which the Aristocrats delcare:

  'Detached, recollected, he lives happily.'

  Then, letting go of pleasure, letting go of pain, their precursers in
  mental ease and discomfort having found their own way home, without
  pain or pleasure, there came the utter purity of the detached mind
  inhabiting the fourth burning.

  Then, thus with calm heart, pure, clean, debtless, without
  afflictions, become soft, capable, steadfast, unshakable, the heart
  bent down to knowledge of the eradication of the corruptions.

  Then the knowledge: 'This is pain' emerged as though a splendid light
  from a dark cloud, the knowledge: 'This is the source of pain' emerged
  as though a splendid light from a dark cloud, the knowledge: 'This is
  the end to pain' emerged as though a splendid light from a dark cloud,
  the knowledge: 'This is the way to walk to the end of pain' emerged as
  though a splended light from a dark cloud.

  Then the knowledge: 'This is corruption' emerged as though a splended
  light from a dark cloud, the knowledge: 'This is the source of
  corruption' emerged as though a splended light from a dark cloud, the
  knowledge: 'This is the end to corruption' emerged as though a
  splended light from a dark cloud, the knowledge: 'This is the way to
  walk to the end of corruption' emerged as though a splended light from
  a dark cloud.

  When I knew thus, saw thus, I was freed in heart from the corruption
  of sense pleasures, freed in heart from the corruption of living,
  freed in heart from the corruption of blindness.

  In freedom I thought: "I am free' and had the knowledge:

  'Birth: left behind, carrying on as Brahma: finished, duty's doing:
  done, no further it'n-n-at'n is to be known for me'.

  Even so, my friends, thus knowing, seeing, with regard to this body
  with consciousness and all external signs, I say that 'Bias towards
  me- my-making is uprooted.'

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/10_tens/an10.015.wood.pts.htm

You also have the variant with the rain cloud
http://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/wp/sn/05_mv/sn05.45.149-160.bodh.wp.htm


What are the funeral rites for Tibetan lay Buddhists? I am mostly interested in how a Tibetan Buddhist funeral is carried out in the West, i.e. in countries where Buddhism is not a leading religion. Are there any particular practices or ceremonies that family and friends should perform?

One thing that comes to mind is reading aloud the Tibetan Book of the Dead. When one of my Buddhist friends died I read it for him and I felt it helped both of us attain piece of mind.

For those who are not familiar with Tibetan Book of the Dead, it is meant to be recited for the deceased by a lama (or the most spiritual person available in the absence of real lama). The text addresses the deceased directly, walking him or her through various post-death experiences and relating them with Buddhist Teaching.

As Chogyam Trungpa tells in The Mishap Lineage, since its discovery by Karma Lingpa in 14th century, Tibetan Book of the Dead was preserved in Surmang Monastery and passed down the line of Trungpa Tulkus.


Does Buddhism explain the past karma, and rebirth, of a short-lived fetus? When the rebirth-linking consciousness arises in the fetus (I read elsewhere at around 26 weeks), but the fetus dies (somehow) prior to or during birth, is it possible to understand why this kind of existence happened? And could it be a result of previous lifetime good or bad karma?

In this situation, while there are senses, the fetus cannot make any conscious decision or thought processes or have any understandings yet. Of course depending on the situation physical suffering may have occurred.

So I am trying to understand what kind of link this lifetime is, between the previous and next lifetime, and the effect on continuing rebirths.

is it possible to understand why this kind of existence happened?

not for a worldling
workings of kamma are inexplicable, and are not to be pondered upon lest they cause disquietude and agitation and because such pondering isn't conducive to attainment of nibbana, that's from the Buddha
workings of destiny are yet less explicable, if i may add, because destiny is a combination of personal kamma and fortuity

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to
be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone
who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
about them."

Acinteyya sutta (AN 4.77)


Ledi Sayadaw's "Anatta Dipani" in English? (And Ledi/Saya Thet relationship) Just asking if someone is aware of a complete English translation of Anattadīpanī by Ledi Sayadaw. While an extract is contained in "A Collection of Manuals of Buddhism by Ledi Sayadaw" I was unable to locate a full translation.

The reason for my interest is the following:

According Braun's The Birth of Insight, Anattadīpanī was focused on vedana contemplation (pag. 132):

  Even the Manual on No-Self, which takes the feelings (vedana) as its subject matter, still begins with an explanation of meditative mindfulness of the body (kayagatasati) and its physical elements as a preparatory exercise.

And according the book A Brief Biography of Anagam Sayagyi U Thet And His Teaching (pag. 124), U Thet found inside that book (as well as in Bhāvanādīpanī) a confirmation of his experience and "technique" which he later would pass to U Ba Khin and finally would arrive to Goenka:

  He [Saya Thet] was quite satisfied with his new-found insightful perceptions of the continually changing nature of rupa and nama. But his findings need to be verified or validated by some authority. [...] Saya Thet read "Anatta Dipani" and "Bavana Dipani", the books he had brought back from his home, and checked up all his findings by personal experience. He felt as if the [Ledi] Sayadaw was teaching him at close quarters. The concepts, explanations and instructions heard over ten years ago came back bit by bit, and checked well against his personal findings.

Can you provide the complete references from Braun, and is the other U Htay Hlaing? I have never read anything like a complete technique being passed to Saya Thet Gyi. Following is our take (shared here from a draft) concerning the question of Saya Thet Gyi's teachings:

  There are very few surviving records of Saya Thet Gyi’s instructions,
  discourses, or details about his own meditation practice and
  development.  Erik Braun examined Saya Thet Gyi’s famous student
  Sayagyi U Ba Khin’s biography and teaching, and this analysis gives a
  window into Saya Thet. Braun notes that while U Ba Khin’s teachings
  reference Abhidhamma concepts and the observation of impermanence of
  physical sensations, “[h]is teachings…simplify the technique further
  than Ledi had.” For example, U Ba Khin mentions kalāpas “rather than
  the four elements, which together comprise the kalāpas… This method is
  not a dramatic divergence from Ledi, but such a fine-tuning points to
  the fact that meditation teachers who considered his teachings to be
  authoritative did not necessarily preserve exactly the same approach
  to meditation.”

  In contrast to Ledi Sayadaw, who developed remarkable mastery of many
  key areas of Buddhist scholarship and practice, Saya Thet Gyi’s
  activities were centered on formal meditation instruction. Because he
  did not possess the level of mastery or textual authority of Ledi
  Sayadaw, he was more limited in how he could best disseminate the
  Buddha’s teachings. In understanding where Saya Thet fits into the
  overall Ledi framework, Anauk Sayadaw (အေနာက္ ဆရာေတာ, who himself
  teaches in the Saya Thet tradition) referred to the concept of Ledi
  “mu” and Saya Thet Gyi “ni.” This refers on one hand to the written
  oeuvre and scriptural mastery of Ledi Sayadaw, and on the other to the
  specific meditation technique as taught by Saya Thet Gyi, which fit
  within the general constructs laid out by his teacher. Expanding
  further, Anauk Sayadaw noted that within the enormous breadth of
  Ledi’s teachings, Saya Thet Gyi fashioned a particular and specific
  way to practice, of which Ledi Sayadaw gave his explicit stamp of
  approval.

  At his tazaung, Saya Thet Gyi offered no structured courses of a
  specified time length (indeed, the very concept of formal “courses”
  likely did not exist in those days), but rather yogis were invited to
  come and practice for however long they chose, with many staying
  between one to two weeks. Instructions were not formalized and
  depended more on the teacher-student relationship, as well as the
  student’s own background, aptitude, and progress. When a new student
  arrived, Saya Thet Gyi would begin by teaching ānāpāna, and only if he
  felt the student was ready would he switch to Vipassanā practice,
  sometimes directing them to focus on the awareness of anicca at the
  top of the head, or center of the chest, while doing so.

  In this way one can see how Saya Thet Gyi occupied the middle station
  between the giants of Ledi Sayadaw and Sayagyi U Ba Khin, who both
  transformed Buddhist practice in unprecedented ways. Braun notes that
  the “most salient difference between Ledi and U Ba Khin… is not in the
  theory of meditation but in the practicalities of its teaching. In
  sharp contrast to Ledi’s more flexible approach to meditation
  instructions, U Ba Khin established a rigid timetable for practice
  throughout the day at his center.” Thus, while Saya Thet Gyi may not
  have turned his tazaung into a fully functioning meditation center
  churning out regular courses as U Ba Khin eventually did, he plays an
  important intermediary position, by narrowing down Ledi’s teachings—
  in large part due to the simple fact that Saya Thet did not have the
  same breadth and depth of knowledge as his teacher.

  Regarding his teaching style, Saya Thet Gyi did not meditate all day
  with students, and when in the tazaung with them, he spent most of his
  time in the single cell, from which he sent mettā. He typically came
  in the mornings to check in and give instructions, at which time he
  would sit upon a small raised platform in front of the three Buddha
  statues still existing today. Aware of the sensitivities of being a
  lay teacher and deeply respectful of the Saṅgha, he was careful not to
  sit in anything that resembled a formal monk’s seat. In fact, he
  forewent a higher seat of any kind because he did not wish to put
  himself in a position of power or being above others. And if a monk
  came to learn from him, he was sure to pay formal respects prior to
  teaching, and would see that the monk sat higher than him. On many
  days Saya Thet Gyi gave no discourses at all, but only meditation
  instructions, so that students would focus entirely on the practice.

  In his early days as a teacher, he tended to advise students to stay
  with the mindfulness of breathing for several years, but as he
  progressed as a teacher he was said to bring students to change the
  focus of their attention after less time, sometimes as short as a
  week. To assist newcomers in improving mindfulness of their body
  elements, Saya Thet Gyi sometimes forbade yogis to shower up till or
  on the day when Vipassanā instructions were given.

  Some of the few anecdotes that survive suggest how much Saya Thet Gyi
  tailored his teachings to the individual student. For one student who
  was quite learned in the Abhidhamma and had extensive intellectual
  understanding of samatha and jhana practice, Saya Thet Gyi counseled
  him to be aware of the breath, either by counting breaths or feeling
  its touch.  After one week, he taught the man vipassanā. For another
  student who was in his older years and in ill-health, he instructed
  him in the practice of ānāpāna along with odata kasina (developing
  concentration via a continuous focus on the color white). While the
  primary intention was to help the man accumulate paramis for the next
  life, the practice eventually led him to understand the four elements;
  and he also reported some relief from his heart disease.


What is Modern Vipassana? The more I learn about the modern Vipassana movement the more I feel it promotes an incorrect or inadequate view. But I don't know the movement well so I thought I'd ask what others here think about this increasingly popular approach to the practice.

It seems to discard much of the Buddha's teachings and focus on a quite mundane approach to living that has no metaphysical justification or philosophical significance, bringing some of the benefits of meditative practice without requiring the aspirant to commit to any particular idea of Truth and Reality.

Is this the case? Have I got it wrong? What do you make of it?

The more I learn about the modern Vipassana movement the more I feel it promotes an incorrect or inadequate view.

The modern Vipassana movement started with the renewal of interest in meditative practices in Burma due to the work of Ledi Sayadaw. It spread to the west many due to contact of many westerners with the teaching of Mahasi sayadaw.

Vipassana movement has many lineages with diverse practices some instructions between lineages even contradicting each other. There may even be elements which contradict the teaching in the Tripitaka and commentaries in some practices. Some may slant towards the commentaries more than others. Some may slant towards the Sutta Pitaka more than the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Some are more orthodox than the other which does no have incorrect or inadequate views.

  But I don't know the movement well so I thought I'd ask what others here think about this increasingly popular approach to the practice.

The onus is with oneself to study and see what confirms to the original teaching, than others pointing it out in an open forum, as there are reasonable following to may of the lineages.

I personally tried with the New Burmese method and Goenka's method and settled for the latter. You can try it out through a course:

http://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html

If you want to try out some of the other lineages you can try searching for a course or centre through:

http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

  It seems to discard much of the Buddha's teachings and focus on a quite mundane approach to living ...

Lineages try to justify their practice in terms of the Tripitaka and commentaries. Some slant more towards commentaries than the others. Some more towards the Suttas than the Abhidhamma. Nearly all of them accept the teaching of the Buddha.

Some lineages do have controversial practices which contradict the teachings but still, they nominally accept the teachings and confirms to reasonable parts of the teachings.

  ... that has no metaphysical justification or philosophical significance, ...

The Dhamma has the quality of open invitation for others to come and see and to practice for oneself. Dhamma does not have any mysticism about it.

Also, the Dhamma should be validated through experience than just being philosophical tenents.

  ... bringing some of the benefits of meditative practice without requiring the aspirant to commit to any particular idea of Truth and Reality.

One's knowledge of the Dhamma should be balanced with the meditative experience. So when one starts one does not need to commit to much other than there is something beneficial in the Dhamma.

As one progresses and the understanding deepens, as more theory gets validated by the practice and experience. This way one can progressively deeper truths and realities.


What is the meaning of paramattha dhamma? 'Vipassana jahna is the focusing of the mind on paramattha dhammas'.   (Sayadaw U Pandita, In This Very Life, p. 179)

What is the meaning of paramattha dhamma?

Paramattha dhamma is an Abhidhamma term, meaning the 'highest' dhamma.

The equivalent in the Pali suttas is called 'lokattura (supramundane) dhamma' or 'heartwood'. Such dhamma is related to not-self ('anatta'), emptiness ('sunnata') & here-&-now liberation-&-Nibbana.

The Ani Sutta states:

  Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning,
  transcendent (lokuttara), connected with emptiness — are being
  recited'.

Paramattha dhamma is the opposite of 'lokiya (mundane) dhamma', which is about kamma, rebirth, metta & any other mundane moral dhamma which can be practised with 'self-view' by ordinary unenlightened people. The primary goal of lokiya dhamma is morality & non-harming. Where as the goal of paramattha dhamma is to extinguish all suffering. To quote:

  Paramattha-dhamma (absolute truth of nature) is the Dhamma or the knowledge, which when we know it, will enable us to extinguish dukkha.
  Ultimate truth then is the way the thing that helps us, enables us to
  extinguish all dukkha.

  Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu

The important distinction between 'lokuttara' ('paramattha') & 'lokiya' dhamma is found in the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta, which explains two sorts of Right View:

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

For example, my posts on this forum are exclusively about 'paramattha dhamma'.


Right Effort: Approach Versus Avoidance Is there a difference in practice between approaching positive states and abandoning negative states?

I have tried for a long time to abandon the negative, which in my case is not  too severe (e.g. not drugs, nor physical violence, etc.), but seemingly the focus on abandoning seems less efficient than actually approaching constructive states, such as doing meditation or exercising. If one's problems are not too severe, should one prioritize doing virtuous behaviours (e.g. meditation) above trying to limit the negative?

I had read in psychological texts that an attitude based on approach can be superior to one based on avoidance. Is such a distinction made in Buddhism in any way?

They shouldn't be done in isolation. It should be a comprehensive approach which is exactly why the Buddha taught the Four Right Exertions:

  There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent:
  1. for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen...
  2. for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen...
  3. for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and)
  4. for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. ~~ MN 78 ~~


Is eating fish eggs the same as killing? Is eating fish eggs that we normally find in sushi dishes the same as kiling? Is there any life terminated when we eat them?

the biggest problem is that the fish species for which there is a caviar market are becoming extinct because they cannot reproduce. Many countries are trying to ban the import of the eggs to protect the species.

there are many fish for which the eggs are sold, for this question there are two categories:

1) the eggs are harvested from inside the mother fish. She is pulled out of the water, then to retrieve the eggs her body is sliced from tail to mouth to access the eggs, usually on the boat, often while she is still alive. The eggs may have been fertilized inside her (depending on species).

2) the fish lays the eggs, which are fertilized (either inside her or in the water), and then they are harvested.

either way there is death.


What are the main differences between the Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana branches of Buddhism? The question basically says it all, but I'll try to elaborate a bit:

Are there differences in terms of the concepts used in each of these branches?
Are there differences in the practices of each of the branches?
Or are the differences between each of the branches simply explained in terms of historical or geographical factors?

This question, indeed, requires a whole book in order to be answered completely. Let me address only Theravada and Mahayana here.

In two words:

The most important aspect is that Theravada is focused on your own liberation from suffering, while Mahayana is targeted to all sentient creatures;
There are many consequences here:

Theravada assumes that you have to practice for yourself, while others can only suggest you. Mahayana says that you can (and have to) share your experience and accomplishments with others, thus making followers for yourself;
Theravada suggests to seek enlightenment for yourself first; Mahayana is up to delaying breaking off Samsara in order to help others;
Theravada practices are mostly silent and very personal while in Mahayana it is more often "wrapped" in some collective rituals like chanting;

In Theravada, the final goal for a Bodhisattva is nirvana. In Mahayana, prominence is important by itself;
Each teaching is more or less localized, e.g. at a certain country/territory there's usually only one;
If you'd like to read scriptures in original language, you should be aware that Theravada is written in Pali (Pali Cannon) while Mahayana is written in Sanskrit (Sutras);

Of course, there are also big differences in texts, ritual, etiquette, and so on.

This Comparative Study between two traditions provide with greater details.


Do the scholastic sects say that chan practice is something separate from themselves? Dogen famously said that there are no Buddhist schools, and the idea there is [this or that Buddhist school] is the creation of demons, etc. [Dogen's Eihei Koroku, discourse 7.491, reads:]

  The Buddha Dharma fundamentally has no outer name or form. Later
  people falsely established many random names. Althogh facing the wall
  at Shaolin resembled [dhyana], do not call it Zen School and misguide
  sentient beings.

First, is Dogen saying that Zen [which is misguiding] is nothing separate from scholastic "sects", and if so, is he right?

Second, what do the more scholarly schools - whether Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana - say about Zen?

Remember the concentration division of the Eightfold Noble Path consist of Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration.

The Noble Eightfold Noble Path did not specify a particular practice for obtaining mindful concentration as long as long as they are consistent with the teachings. You can obtain Right Concentration from Sitting Meditation "Zazen" or you can chant sutras, or you can do walking meditation. In fact for the Chan/ Zen practitioner they aspire to maintain Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration in every moment, in every thought. Some  practices are easier than others to obtain concentration however, that's why sitting meditation is generally fundamental since it avoids distractions.

To summarize:

Right Effort

  "And what, monks, is right effort?

  [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors,
  activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the
  non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

  [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds &
  exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful
  qualities that have arisen.

  [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds
  & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities
  that have not yet arisen.

  [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds &
  exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase,
  plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have
  arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vayamo/index.html

Right Mindfulness

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right
  view: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right
  resolve: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
  speech: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
  action: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
  right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness..."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sati/index.html

Right Concentration

  "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/index.html

As long as the Noble Eightfold Path is being practiced, mindful concentration is possible and therefor the Jhanas also known as Chan or Zen is possible. Therefore the myriad practices of Buddhism lead to the same thing and there is no separation. You can scrub clean the floor and have mental concentration to experience Joy and Peace in your heart. Or you can chant sacred scriptures while performing complex mudras.

In theory, the Noble Eightfold Path must be practiced by every school of Buddhism and hence 'Chan/Zen' is practiced by every schools of Buddhism whatever their names maybe. However, as it tends to happen there are monks and schools who don't know what they are doing and spend their time debating philosophical concepts in the scriptures or running a temple like a business and not cultivating themselves and not practicing the Dharma. Even within the Chan/Seon/Zen school in China/Korea/Japan there are people who lost sight of what 'Zen' actually means and engaged in pointless philosophizing. As long you know how it work you can see the practices everywhere and not be confused by surface appearances.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


How concerned should Buddhists be with the actions of others? Even as I find peace and contentment in observing the 5 precepts and following along the 8 fold path, I realize I sometimes unintentionally benefit from those who don't live in this manner. For example  a friend takes something that wasn't freely given and shares it with me or a nearby person kills the insect flying around that I was trying to ignore. If I have not encouraged people to do such, should I be concerned about their actions or remain concerned only with my own intentions and actions?

I am going to quote Jack Kornfield's Living Dharma, specifically the interview portion with Achaan Chaa, excerpt from the question of "If putting everything together in our bowls is important, why don't you as a teacher do it yourself?" (page 42 to 43 of my edition):

Wisdom is for yourself to watch and develop. Take from the teacher what is good. Be aware of your own practice. If I am resting while you must sit up does this make you angry? If I call the color blue red or say that male is female, don't follow me blindly.
[…] If you watch others at most ten percent of the time and watch yourself ninety percent, this is proper practice. […]
Looking outside the self is comparing, discriminating. You will not find happiness that way. Nor will you find peace if you spend your time looking for the perfect man or the perfect teacher. The Buddha taught us to look at the Dharma, the truth, not to look at other people.

So I would say that, based on this, the lesson here is to remain focused on your own intentions and actions, but to strive to fully notice your own reactions to what happens. If someone else kills the insect and you benefit, how does that make you feel? How do you respond to it?
I would argue that goes even if you have encouraged them not to do it.


In the trisvabhava theory, is the consummate nature inflected by past present and future conditions? In the trisvabhava theory, is the consummate nature inflected by past present and future conditions? Or is it always the same and independent of causal conditions?

Yes consummate nature is inflected by past present and future conditions but it is not inflected by time. Do any other mahayana object?
If something is composed of multiple parts and one of those parts is timeless and not inflected by time. Then the whole cannot be inflected by time even if it is composed of another part that is inflected by karma (including past present and future conditions).
My advice: become enlightened and try to prove whether or not you are existing in reality as we know it, or not.


'Antarabhava' existence between rebirth and the death Does a state called "Antarabhava" an existence between death and rebirth exist?
Traditional Theravada sources, highly respected scholars and texts in Abhidhamma directly decline this as there is no such thing in the Dependant Origination. Arahat Moggaliputta Tissa Thero has also rejected this in the 3rd Buddhist Council.
Bhikkus who support the claim that "Antarabhava" exists takes examples from suttas such as Tirokudda Sutta the first few verses,
Kutuhalasala Sutta the last paragraph where Buddha states that a being who has left the present body but has not reborn in another body is sustained on craving (Tanha).

Most who are born in the human world will wait in a mind-made body waiting for a suitable place to be born. However it is not a birth or an existence.
You can learn more from this Noble Eight-Fold Path Meditation: https://youtu.be/vu0UZDb3gKk?list=PLk22Pmbx-cNPA_vMHe4G9LOZaPm8GGpM_&t=5790
However the goal here is to understand the suffering nature of bodily pain (i.e. the 'dukka' part in dukka, domanassa, soka, parideva)


Strong tingling sensation in face that persists +- hour after meditation I've been meditating for about 8 years.
Recently I did a second vipassana 10 day silent retreat.

A few days in, when focussing on my face, my face got highly sensitive, and a strong tingling was felt in it. This feeling intensified when focusing more on the areas where I would place my attention. Even focusing on parts of the neck and throat would have the same effect on the face.

The sensations would last after meditation and subside after about an hour or so. My teacher assured me that it happens more often, and I should probably not focus too much on my face.

I'm slightly worried about it still, and decided to fully avoid the face area for now, and take it easy meditating altogether.

I was wondering if others had similar experiences, alternative interpretations, and other ways to work with it.

Thank you!

As you progress in meditation you will start feeling sensations in different parts of your body. At some point, you will feel sensations thought out the body.

There is nothing to get alarmed. Also, do not get attached to it. Simply continue your meditation.

Do not avoid any areas and also do not stay long in any area than others.


Is there any Proof of No-Rebirth? Is there proof that rebirth does not exist?That it is not real?

There was a North American academic named Ian Stevenson who spent decades investigating people who claimed to remember their previous lives.
Some people cite him as having found evidence of rebirth.
In summary, he sought and collected stories, and discarded the stories which were proven untrue or fabricated. After discarding the untrue stories, what he had left were the stories which he didn't prove were untrue (i.e. stories which appeared to be true).
The Skeptic's dictionary entry on that subject says there's no way to use that methodology to prove that rebirth doesn't happen,

The historian, the journalist, and the jury member, on the other hand, must constantly deal with issues like lying, hoaxing, and fraud. Most important, though, is the fact that historians, journalists, and jury members have to evaluate the words and perceptions of people, rather than the structure or properties of things. Stevenson's work would require constant vigilance against being deceived by his subjects. Furthermore, since we know that people can have memories and be completely unaware of the source of those memories, he would have to be vigilant in identifying which memories were likely the result of cryptomnesia. Also, there is the major problem of providing an explanation for how a personality can survive death and transfer to another body, something Stevenson had no answer for. Finally, the most problematic issue Stevenson would have to face using his method of collecting stories would be the fact that nothing could ever count against his hypothesis. Stories that are rejected as hoaxes, frauds, questionable, unreliable, or based on experiences in this lifetime would be discarded, but they wouldn't count against the reincarnation hypothesis. The worst case scenario for Stevenson's method would be that his evidence does not compel belief and that even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations. Unfortunately, that is also his best case scenario. Most people are not likely to be too impressed when they realize that all Stevenson had to show for over forty years of research is that it is now false to claim that there is no evidence for reincarnation. It is still quite reasonable, however, to claim that there is no compelling evidence for reincarnation.
[...]
Stevenson would conduct dozens of interviews and spend hours searching through hospital and court records, trying to establish that there was no fraud involved, that the story wasn't contaminated, that there weren't errors in translation, that the events weren't just coincidental, that the child couldn't have gotten the information in any normal way. When he satisfied himself that there was no normal explanation for the concordance of story and facts, he would count the case as "solved" and see it as a piece of positive evidence supporting the reincarnation hypothesis. If he got a PLE story but couldn't corroborate it with facts, he called the case "unsolved." There is nothing that could be discovered by this method that could ever falsify the reincarnation hypothesis. And it remains a mystery as to what further research, that might be falsifiable, could ever evolve from Stevenson's technique.

Based on this Skeptic's dictionary entry, IMO there is no "proof of non-rebirth" (otherwise they might have referenced that proof in the Skeptic's dictionary). The most they can say, their strongest argument against his work, is, "There is nothing that could be discovered by this method that could ever falsify the reincarnation hypothesis."
In other words the skeptic seems to me to be claiming that the theory is, not "proven untrue", but rather "unfalsifiable" ... perhaps analogous to the way in which 'existence of God' or 'Russel's teapot' are unfalsifiable.


Leave pain while enjoying life? I'm really interested in Buddhism, but I have a hard time motivating myself to follow the five precepts. I don't particularly want to stop eating meat, let alone stop drinking and/or smoking.

Can I still move along the Buddhist path? In the path to the disappearance of suffering?

Thanks!

You don't have to be a vegetarian if you follow Theravada Buddhism. The Buddha himself left it up to the individual preference. Only certain later Buddhist schools started demanding the followers to become vegetarian.

But you have to stop drinking as it leads to heedlessness and breaking of the other 4 precepts. Smoking does not break the precepts, but it's an addiction and very bad for your health.

Being a Buddhist only requires you to take the refuge in the Triple-gem, but you will not get far in Buddhism without keeping to the five precepts.


Can I say my Dhamma is Kamma? I bear the brunt of my Karma. Nobody else. Self is so clearly elucidated by the theory of Kamma. Whatever I did in the past is responsible for what happens to me in the present and future. Effect of Kamma on self can not be neglected and I think I am nothing but a consequence of my Kamma in the past.

My question is: can I say my Dhamma is Kamma? If yes , can I also say Sabbe Kamma Anatta?

I pay homage to the Buddha, my Karma and the Sangha.

I pay homage to the Buddha, the Karma and the Sangha.

I don't know...

I never heard anyone refer to the Dhamma as a possession or something that is spoken of  dualistically  like karma (my good dhamma, my bad dhamma). So just grammatically it doesn't really fit.

Really, these are just words. Ultimately we don't possess anything and there is more to the Dharma than just karma.

On the other hand, concepts in Buddhism fit together with such incredible grace that it can sort of seem like one concept is the same as the next concept but from another perspective or in another context.

I hope I'm not misunderstanding your question and I hope this helps.-metta


Is there an equivalent of "Dokkaebi" in Buddhism? The Dokkaebi are legendary creatures present in Korean mythology. Notably described as having supernatural abilities used to interact with humans. They often play tricks on or help humans and are described to be "impish" or goblin-like.

They possess an "awe-inspiring" or "fearful" appearance as well as the ownership of indescribably magical objects.

Are there any parallels of creatures that fit these descriptions in Buddhism?

What you describe fits yakkha (Pali) or yaksha (Sanskrit). You can find more info on this on the Wikipedia page on Yaksha where it says:

  Yaksha (Sanskrit: यक्ष yakṣa, Kannada: ಯಕ್ಷ yakṣa, Tamil: யகன் yakan,
  இயக்கன் iyakan, Odia: ଯକ୍ଷ jôkhyô, Pali: yakkha) are a broad class
  of nature-spirits, usually benevolent, but sometimes mischievous or
  capricious, connected with water, fertility, trees, the forest,
  treasure and wilderness. They appear in Hindu, Jain and Buddhist
  texts, as well as ancient and medieval era temples of South Asia and
  Southeast Asia as guardian deities. The feminine form of the word is
  yakṣī or Yakshini (yakṣiṇī).

  In Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist texts, the yakṣa has a dual personality.
  On the one hand, a yakṣa may be an inoffensive nature-fairy,
  associated with woods and mountains; but there is also a darker
  version of the yakṣa, which is a kind of ghost (bhuta) that haunts the
  wilderness and waylays and devours travelers, similar to the rakṣasas.

The story in Udana 4.4 describes an act of mischief committed by a yakkha:

  A third time, the first yakkha said to the second, "I'm inspired to
  give this contemplative a blow on the head."

  A third time, the second yakkha said to the first, "Enough of that, my
  good friend. Don't lay a hand on the contemplative. He's an
  outstanding contemplative, of great power & great might."

  Then the first yakkha, ignoring the second yakkha, gave Ven. Sāriputta
  a blow on the head. And with that blow he might have knocked over an
  elephant seven or eight cubits tall, or split a great rocky crag. But
  right there the yakkha — yelling, "I'm burning!" — fell into the Great
  Hell.

  Now, Ven. Moggallāna — with his divine eye, pure and surpassing the
  human — saw the yakkha give Ven. Sāriputta a blow on the head. Seeing
  this, he went to Ven. Sāriputta and, on arrival, said to him, "I hope
  you are well, friend Sāriputta. I hope you are comfortable. I hope you
  are feeling no pain."

  "I am well, friend Moggallāna. I am comfortable. But I do have a
  slight headache."

However, in SN 10.8, a yakkha tried to be helpful to the Buddha's lay disciple Anathapindika:

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Rajagaha in the Cool Grove. Now at that time Anathapindika the
  householder had arrived in Rajagaha on some business. He heard, "An
  Awakened One, they say, has appeared in the world," and he wanted to
  go right then to see the Blessed One. Then the thought occurred to
  him, "Today is not the proper time to go to see the Blessed One.
  Tomorrow I will go to see the Blessed One at the proper time." With
  his mindfulness immersed in the Awakened One he lay down to sleep.
  Three times he got up during the night, thinking it was light. Then he
  went to the gate to the charnel ground. Non-human beings opened the
  gate.

  When Anathapindika the householder had left the city, the light
  vanished and darkness appeared. Fear, terror, & horripilation arose,
  and because of that he wanted to turn back. Then Sivaka the
  yakkha-spirit, invisible, proclaimed:

    A hundred elephants,
    a hundred horses,
    a hundred mule-drawn carts,
    a hundred-thousand maidens
    adorned with jewels & earrings
    aren't worth one-sixteenth
    of one step forward.

    Go forward, householder!
    Go forward, householder!
    Going forward is better for you,
    not back!

  The darkness then vanished for Anathapindika and the light appeared.
  The fear, terror, & horripilation he had felt subsided.


How to cure music influence on mind? Namo Buddhaya.I have a habit of playing involuntary songs in my head which spoils my mood. I am a living library of songs. I have been hearing music since my childhood days.
My question is : how can I cure the music influence on my mind ?
Should I stop listening to songs ?

These songs in the mind are hindances. To stop them, yes, stopping listening to songs.

And what is the nutriment for the five hindrances? It should be said: the three kinds of misconduct. The three kinds of misconduct, too, I
say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the
nutriment for the three kinds of misconduct? It should be said:
non-restraint of the sense faculties. Non-restraint of the sense
faculties, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment.
And what is the nutriment for non-restraint of the sense faculties? It
should be said: lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension. Lack of
mindfulness and clear comprehension, too, I say, has a nutriment; it
is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of
mindfulness and clear comprehension? It should be said: careless
attention. Careless attention, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not
without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for careless attention?
It should be said: lack of faith. Lack of faith, too, I say, has a
nutriment; it is not without nutriment.
AN 10.61


Personal continuity in the absence of a persistent, unchanging self How is personal continuity (including continuity at rebirth) explained in Buddhism in the absence of a persistent, unchanging self? Do all Buddhists agree on a single explanation? I am reading the book, Foundations of Buddhism, by Rupert Gethin. He has provided some explanation, but I am not sure whether it is the original Buddhist explanation or his own interpretation.

The arising and cease of the aggregates (form, feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness) occurs everytime contact happens. When contact occurs, new feelings, perceptions and consciousness arise, which are affected by the previous mind-states. As a result, mental formations are altered as well. And form is not the exception: with contact, multiple physiological changes happen at a molecular and cellular levels.

If we have a object, and we change or modify at least one of its contituents, we can no longer say that it is the same object anymore. Sure, some of its parts are still intact, but as a whole, the object is not the same. The same applies to the "self": if we took two point of time and compare that which we consider a "self" in both of those points, we can see that although it is not the same being, it is not an entirely different one, totally disconnected causally speaking.

The aggregates are influenced by external factors and stimuli, while at the same time they are influencing each other. Also, the khandhas are exerting a constant influence on the environment as well. There's constant change (what a paradoxical statement, isn't it?) in the aggregates and in the world. As nothing stays the same all the time, what deserves to be called "I" and "me" in a permanent and ultimate sense?

In the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta it is stated:

  "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

Also, when we act with intention (either through thoughts, speech or bodily actions) we create kamma. In the Kamma Sutta it is said:

  "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye... The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma."

As a consequence of that Kamma (through "our" volitional actions), the being "we were" created the being "we are" now, which in time it's creating the being "we will be" in the future. What "we are" now is the result of mutual conditionality between past kamma, present kamma and the present context/stimuli.

"We" always in quotations, because it has already been said that there's not a permanent thing to be called a "self" between all those states of being through time. And so, you cannot talk about "personal" continuity in the sense of a person which is carried on and underlying the changing aspect of the "self"; absolutely everything in the aggregates is subject to change if the supporting conditions cease to exist.

Kind regards!


Meditation - hot and expectant in the morning I have been doing regular shamata meditation for three months now. By regular I mean at least two sessions of 24 minutes every day and sessions in between, f.ex ten minute sessions at work whenever it's quiet.

Two questions

1 When I sit, after about 3 or 4 for minutes, I get real warm. It's not really that bothering but interestingly this seems to happen in many sessions. After about 12-15 minutes the heat cools off again. Does anyone recognise this?

2 I am a "lucky" man and try to respect my fortunate karma. Not only do I have a stable familiy life, after many years of drugs and drink. I also have a job that I really like. I look forward to work every single day of the year. And my family supports meditation practice and Buddhism.

But my contentment with work actually makes meditation more difficult in the morning, because I'm so expectant. I am getting better at not "looking forward to work", but it's so much easier for me to keep focus in afternoon/evening. Any tips?

Be expectant in life as a house holder but not when meditating. When meditating focus on the task at hand.

With regards to ideal time for meditation, it depends, from person to person and time to time. For some people morning sessions may work well while evenings may not, but for the same people evenings may work well in some periods. Hence it is best to practice at least 2 times a day.

The heating up and cooling experience you mentioned is normal. People experience certain persisting parters of experience like burning sensation, acute pains, vibrations, etc., but these also will change after some time. Do not dwell of give too much importance to the experience but use it to eradicate your past store of Sankara as in the Pahana Suttas (Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2). Be equanimous to the experience knowing it is impermanent (arising and passing).


What is the exact difference between samatha and passadha? What is the exact difference between samatha and passadha?

samatha is a term frequently used. No problem defining that.

Passadha is not easily defined by web search. It appears and Portuguese and greek.

here is a link referring to passadha referring to the eye center.
http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/msg/125kd.txt

Perhaps there are other terms for passadha that are more widely used.


What is the relationship between patience and kindness? I was just reading some of the commentarial literature in the Pali Canon and it occurred to me that there seems to be some kind of relationship between patience and kindness that I don't fully understand but would like to get clarity on.

Kindness is descriptive of a wholesome state of mind encompassing love and compassion. These states of mind arise in the absence of states of mind having greed, anger and delusion.

Patience is the characteristic of bearing with some form of suffering (physical and/or mental). Being able to bear with suffering prevents mind states based on anger from arising. Hence developing patience allows one to bear with suffering without allowing anger to arise, which allows kindness to blossom.

This is the relationship between patience and kindness.

Although this is not your question, how is one able to bear with suffering and therefore develop patience? By seeing reality clearly. How does one see reality clearly? By paying attention to the four foundations of mindfulness.

So, practising the four foundations of mindfulness allows one to be patient such that anger does not arise while experiencing suffering, thus allowing one to be kind.


I want to understand the technicality of rebirth and what happens to conditioned self Correct me if I'm wrong about my current understanding of Buddhism: There is no eternal self or essence in me, but I am just a conditioned-self, an illusion created by the interaction of the five aggregates. Each time I do something, or will something, its this distorted conditioned-self in play, right?

Now, I want to understand what happens to this conditioned self when we die. You say its just an illusion, but lets take a practical example: A person dies in New York, and then is being reborn in Washington D.C the next moment. So here, you want to say the conditioned-self (illusion) travelled all the way from New York to D.C. to affect his/her next birth?

As a corollary to this question, I would also like to understand the technicality of kamma. Say a person violates the precept of non-killing in New York in his/her present birth. How does the kamma know whom to punish 50 years later when that same person is reborn in D.C.? (You may say here that there is no external law-maker, but kamma is just in our minds. But that's still begging the question - How does it know whom to punish 50 years later?)

The question of how karma works in light of the concept of non-self has been answered several times on this site (see "Related" in the sidebar). That being said, you raise a couple of interesting objections, namely the seemingly impossible jump through time and space.

First, let's be clear. The Buddha never said "there is no self". What he did say is that all things are non-self and that he didn't see any view of self that wouldn't lead to suffering for someone who held it.  This may sound like splitting hairs, but it is important in helping understand the nature of reality, as well as karma and rebirth.

Reality, according to the Buddha, is experience-based; this means that, to some extent, even time and space are dependent on the mind.  This is why body and mind (naama-ruupa) are said to be dependent on consciousness (vi~n~naa.na). Experience doesn't admit of things like "self" or "soul", or "cat" or "dog", for that matter. But it also doesn't admit of existential questions like "is there a self?" The question itself doesn't work in an experiential paradigm, since there is no impersonal spatio-temporal framework in which to place the object in question. "Is there a cat in the room?" requires the existence of a room to make sense.

In fact, experience doesn't admit of continuity, either, which is perhaps more pertinent to your question. The mind only lasts for a moment, being defined as the awareness of a single experience, arising and ceasing with the object of experience. Hearing this, it is common to question how rebirth and karma can therefore have any effect over space-time. Given, however, the premise that reality is based on experience, such questions are a matter of a conflation of paradigms.

Simply put, the mind doesn't move from one place to another, or last from one moment (or life) to another, "place" and "time" are considered a product of experience. An experience of seeing is "real" whether it occurs with eyes opened or closed. The idea that "I am in this room" is only valid in the context of the experiences that give rise to it.

I recently had an opportunity to watch a demo on Occulus Rift, my first experience of virtual reality. It's amazing how easily the mind is completely tricked into thinking that what it sees is "real". But that is the point; it is real, from within an experiential paradigm.

Scientists have done studies wherein they tricked a subject into thinking they were behind themselves, and the subject felt like they were outside their bodies. When sleeping, it is common for people to have out-of-body experiences. Near death, it is common to have OOBEs or or even visions of other worlds or deceased individuals. Some people claim to be visited by people who have recently died, or are on their death bed in far away cities. All of this is anecdotal, but it lends credence to the idea that the mind is at least somewhat independent of space, which from a Buddhist point of view is empirically true.

So, to actually answering your question, how does it work? The mind doesn't travel through space or time, space and time are a product of matter, which in turn is at least somewhat dependent on the mind ("Interdependent with" might be a better description). During life, body and mind work together to create the illusion of an impersonal spatio-temporal reality that is, in reality, made up of a causal framework (i.e. based on cause and effect) of momentary experiences that affect each other and direct one's life according to one's past deeds.

At the moment of death, something weird happens, but not categorically different. "The mind" has been habitually focussed on "the body", meaning that there is a habit for most experiences to occur in a specific locale, dependent on specific stimuli. The body, for all intents and purposes, is more like a prison than a progenitor for the mind. This is why OOBEs are uncommon and NDEs are actually fairly common (~20% by one doctor's estimation). Even still, the mind is capable of procuring visions of far away places and long-lost memories, especially when the body is dormant (i.e. dreaming when asleep).

At the moment of death, however, there is no pull of attraction to the body, so the mind is (mostly) free to wander. Strange things apparently happen after physical death, but eventually the mind states coalesce and decide upon a new object of attachment, usually based on old, engrained habits (humans become humans, etc.). As a result, and based on various karmic qualities, a new path is chosen and set out upon, giving rise to rebirth. This may lead the mind to appear to "travel" thousands or even millions or billions of kilometres in a moment, but what is really happening is that the new physical phenomena are being created by the mind, wherever the mind happens to incline. I.e., the newborn foetus's mind is affected by the prior mind of the being to be born, regardless of "where" that mind occurred.

This concept of "movement" of the mind from one location to another actually occurs all the time; in human life, however, it is loosely limited to the confines of this six-foot frame. The point is, space-time is dependent on matter, not the other way around, and the mind is not entirely dependent on either (being able to remember past (and present) lives and even have visions of the future). This doesn't mean that the mind is entirely free to do as it chooses, it just means that it is confined to a different set of laws, ones that don't preclude the potential for it to arise in conjunction with physical phenomena in diverse reaches of the physical universe.

Interestingly, there are stories in the texts of rebirth-preparatory matter arising before one's mental relocation; mansions arising spontaneously in heaven to await their master who is busy doing good deeds on Earth, for example. This only presents difficulty if we are stuck in a spatio-temporal, impersonal paradigm for reality, which from a Buddhist point of view is absolutely false.

Karma is far more complex, but not difficult to understand in principle. The interactions between streams of conscious experience is causal as well, and leads beings to be reborn in connection with other beings who share their karmic histories, simply based on the energy of their past interactions, similar to the complex attractions and repulsions between physical particles. So, fifty years later, something you did in a past life might come back to kick you in the pants, just like a rock you throw away from the Earth can come back to hit you on the head. More importantly, everything we do at every moment has the potential to affect the immediate direction of the individual, meaning karma is very much about momentary causality, rather than future incidental results.

Sorry for the length, but I think this is actually a very important issue; what seems like a bit of tangential dilemma from a practical meditative point of view turns out to be a crucial sticking point towards proper understanding of reality and giving up views of self. Ultimately, however, you can only really understand these concepts by meditation on experiential reality; be reassured, however, that that is all it takes - no abstract ratiocination required :)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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