At my university I and my group were offered a case of opinion on Buddhism. Neither I nor my colleagues are Buddhists so we have done a lot of research in the last few days, but we are afraid of misinterpreted this religion. The case given to us is about a Buddhist who works in an investment fund and basically his job is to recommend investments to clients. Right now, the best investment he can recommend is related to the manufacture and exchange of automatic weapons. We found that having a job that causes suffering to other creatures is against buddhism and for that reason, since weapons are something that is created to cause suffering the worker is in doubt... Can he recommend this investment on weapon to his clients because recommending this investment is really far from causing suffering to other creature with a gun or it doesn't matter and it is against the buddhism and he should leave this job ? Thank you, Tiago from Portugal

For years I've been trying to find the source of a quote, but I've only been able to get so far. The quote is "Like a fish in a puddle, what joy is there." This seems to come from some verses titled, "Samantabhadra's Admonition to the Assembly". My research indicates that it's part of the evening service for Pure Land schools of Buddhism. I've even found the Chinese for it. 是日已過， 命亦隨減， 如少水魚， 斯有何樂； 大眾當勤精進， 如救頭然， 但念無常， 慎勿放逸。 I can read and understand Japanese, but Chinese is only half a guess for me since I'm only using my understanding of Japanese to read it. But, I'm having a hard time finding Japanese sources. Most of my searches pull up Chinese sources. It seems it's from a sutra, but I don't which sutra it comes from. I have figured out that it's not from the Flower Garland Sutra (Avatamsaka Sutra), nor is it from the Lotus Sutra. Could anyone help me out?

Why does in almost all instances in the pali canon where Lord Buddha refers to himself he calls himself "Tathagatha" in 3rd person? Is it because Lord Buddha has eliminated self view? Or is it that when a bodhisattva reaches buddhahood he becomes the same as all previous Buddhas? Or a combination of both?

This page, [Lay Buddhist Vows](http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/panchasila.html) , says, > 3. Do not distort fact > This one is usually translated as: don't lie. Again: it wider than that. Sometimes the use of words can make something seem acceptable, when it could also have been said very differently and be totally unacceptable. This would not be a lie, but it would be a distortion of fact. As per above phrase about 3rd precept of Pancha Sila, as a Buddhist if we tell lies it's definitely a sin. But in this modern world sometimes we have to lie: we will lie to our wife, we will lie in the working place, we will lie to our mother father; in this world you cannot find a person who has not lied. So my question is, if tell so many lies to save lives, will it be a sin?

I see many monks smiling ,which is a good thing, but logically speaking how can they smile when they know life is dukkha. Can you smile when you are watching somebody getting tortured ? My question is : How can I smile when I know existence itself is dukkha ?

My question is that where do I focus ? The outer nose or outer nose with upper lip

When practicing the Dhamma there are many exemplary characters found in Buddhist texts who are worthy of emulation,I want to know whether it would be right for a layman to regard an Arahant Bhikkuni as his role model. Is it suitable?

I have a question regarding the fetters. Once a fetter is lost, is it obvious to that person that it has been lost? If one has doubt about the loss of a fetter, is that in itself proof that it has not been lost? Many thanks.

In the Puttamansa Sutta, the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors'). The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a '*skinned cow*', of '*two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire*' & of a '*thief punished by a king*' are not obvious in their meaning. These three similes are: > *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **sense-impression** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close > to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the > cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures > living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the > creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the > open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever > that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at > it.* > > *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **volitional thought** be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled > to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke. > Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who > wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would > seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O > monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it > his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows: > 'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or > deadly pain.*' > > *And how, O monks, should the nutriment **consciousness** be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought > him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty! > Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would > tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred > spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At > noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still > alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with > a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them > again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the > evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.* What do we think each of these similes means?

I am practicing celibacy from last 6 months. I cannot control my nocturnal emissions. I have some control but not complete control. In the beginning I used to get wet dreams every 10-12 days and now I get them every 45-50 days. I have extremely pure thoughts all day long. I don't think that I'll ever get sexual thought again. I believe that I have trained my mind very well. One the nights when the emission happens I don't have any erotic dreams, it happens without any sexual thought or an erotic dream. I practise Halassana & Balasana every day without fail. I also do physical activity running mainly. Why am I still not able to control wet dreams? I want to get rid of them completely. I researched a lot on the web but couldn't find any satisfactory answer for the following questions: **Do all monks get nocturnal emissions? How often does it happen to them especially young monks age around 24-25? If it happens to them, what do they do about it? If it doesn't then, how does they train themselves to reach that level?** Note: I am new to this site so don't know what would be the appropriate tags for the question so kindly edit if they are not suitable. If the question is not appropriate for the site, instead of downvoting it, let me know via comment, I will take it down myself.

So, I meditate every for more than half an hour during the evenings and also five minutes session every one or two hours during my work so I keep myself calm all the time(not every day but I am trying to do in these lockdown days) but what I feel is I easily get exhausted from my work which involves only heavy mental activities. But otherwise if I let myself refresh doing things which excites us like joking with my friends, watching fast beat songs, etc. I can continue my work feeling energetic. But the downside of this is I easily get carried away with the stuffs I do for refreshing or even get stressed with my work. How to balance this?(physically i am weak person due to medical problem)

Some call Buddhism psychology, so maybe it can help -- me. This sense that doing something -- let's take a difficult but generic example, learning sanskrit -- is a wonderful, exciting idea; but one never gets started with it, because there is no tangible psychological or material benefit from it -- for whatever reason [you won't find anyone new to talk with, most texts are in translation, no-one will care, etc.]. What remedy is there for this?

Today I suffered severe disappointment because I thought I was cheated some amount of money. I couldn't complain to anyone because I had no proof. And I suspect those who cheated me will also cheat other people. I want to avoid such disappointments in future and also I want to do the right thing. What should be my response on getting cheated ? Should I forgive the thugs who stole my money ? Should I wish bad for them and report it to the police or the managers?

Currently I practise Zazen as I have read from books i.e 'Just sitting doing nothing'. I keep an erect sitting posture, back straight and eyes closed. This hasen't led me anywhere. So I am asking the official way to practise Zazen and Zen in general so as to lead one to Stori.

In chapter 3 of _Buddhism, A Concise Introduction_, Huston Smith and Philip Novak give a list of characteristics present in Hinduism at the time of the Buddha: 1. **Authority:** "talent and sustained attention will lift some people above others in matters of spirit" 2. **Ritual** 3. **Speculation:** "Whence do we come, whither do we go, why are we here? People want answers to these questions." 4. **Tradition** 5. **Grace:** "In the last resort the universe is friendly; we can feel at home in it." 6. **Mystery:** "Being finite, the human mind cannot begin to fathom the Infinite, which it is drawn to." The authors described Buddhism as "(at the start) a religion almost entirely devoid of each of the above mentioned ingredients without which we would suppose that religion could not take root." In particular, "Buddha preached a religion that skirted speculation." The authors quote from Sutta 63 of the Majjhima Nikāya, wherein one of the Buddha's disciples says, > Whether the world is eternal or not eternal, whether the world is finite or not, whether the soul is the same as the body or whether the soul is one thing and the body another, whether a Buddha exists after death or does not exist after death—these things the Lord does not explain to me. Near the end of the chapter Smith and Novak write, > After his death all the accoutrements the Buddha labored to protect his religion from came tumbling into it, but as long as he lived, he kept them at bay. As a consequence, original Buddhism presents us with a version of religion that is unique and therefore historically invaluable This is how Buddhism is often presented in the west, but my impression was that there were no extant texts to support it. For example, via [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Nature_of_traditional_depictions) , here is a seemingly contradictory claim from Andrew Skilton's _A Concise History of Buddhism_. > It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), [the Buddha] was never seen as being merely human. For instance, he is often described as having the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks or signs of a mahāpuruṣa, "superman"; the Buddha himself denied that he was either a man or a god; and in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta he states that he could live for an aeon were he asked to do so. The Mahāparinibbāna Sutta is part of the Pāli Canon so AFAIK is as old as any record we have. Is Huston and Novak's view at odds with Skilton's? Or am I missing something? And if they are at odds, can Huston and Novak's view be supported?

When it is come to **"dana"** I heard many times **"First do something for loved ones".** I don't have any confusion regarding "dana" generosity. But lately I'm thinking indulge partner is means worthless (being emotional or emotionally doing something for partner) or just fragile thing. >If I'm buying something or even giving rose to partner, is it worthless? Is being emotional means cheap, am I thinking wrong? **🌺 Happy Vesak to all of you 🌺**

I'm hearing of lay people becoming enlightened by the Buddha but did any of them become Lay Dhamma Teachers? When where the first lay teacher(s) of the eightfold path?

What is wrong with pleasing others? To what level should we care about others, and what should we avoid?

Where did Lord Buddha say to Ananda Thero that a Buddha can, if there is an invitation, extend His lifespan? Was this mentioned in a Sutta or somewhere else?

Nowadays, it can be seen that instead of doing meditation people are focusing on rectifying outside world. Some of such people call themselves a saint, sanyaasi, monk, swami, mahaguru (great teacher), sadguru(teacher of all), etc. But it can be easily detected that they are not worthy of such noble words. If someone is unsatisfied in one way or other and is not ready to compromise in any way, can that person be a "self inspired meditator" to be an Arahant? Remember Buddha's last words: "Atta Hi Attano Natho" (You are your own master), in fact this is what our mind does. Is it possible to live an ascetic life in India/Nepal and meditate to one's heart's contents? Any suggestions of such place in India/Nepal? (That place must be silent, as in pin-drop-silence). This question has 2 parts: 1) Possibility of being a SELF - Meditator/Bhikkhu. 2) Silent place/ashram/Monastery in India/Nepal to practice Self-Meditation by being a monk without teacher, other than core teachings of Buddha (Means without teacher-student criteria)? Contact me at tempoit1@gmail.com to have discussion/advice in private (if you don't want to answer in public).