In several answers on this site, judging others as judge or jury is looked upon unfavourably, for both lay people and monks. It is often said that the one who passes a guilty or innocent verdict, would carry some karmic consequences. However, the following quote from the Dhammapada seems to condone the act of judging others. Is this the right interpretation of these Dhammapada verses or is there another interpretation? Maybe it's just a metaphor? If so, a metaphor for what? On the other hand, if this is the correct interpretation, then could these verses be used to endorse the participation of lay Buddhists as judge or jury? Dhammapada 256-257 as translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: > To pass judgment hurriedly > doesn't mean you're a judge. > The wise one, weighing both > the right judgment & wrong, > **judges others** impartially — > unhurriedly, in line with the Dhamma, > guarding the Dhamma, > guarded by Dhamma, > intelligent: > he's called a judge. Dhammapada 256-257 as translated by Acharya Buddharakkhita: > 256. Not by passing arbitrary judgments does a man become just; a wise man is he who investigates both right and wrong. > > 257. He who does not **judge others** arbitrarily, but passes judgment impartially according to the truth, that sagacious man is a guardian > of law and is called just.

Is it possible for a monk to be called for jury duty in the U.S.A.? If so, does the Buddhist religion prevent them from taking part int he judicial process, as it involves passing judgment on others? Furthermore, would it be considered an offense for a lay person to be a member of a jury that had to decide on a death penalty case?

I am exploring non duality. I tend to believe it's true but I'm not sure if I accept the transcendent element. Is it possible that this awareness is simply a deeper level of the mind ? That it's not part of God or a higher power. Not eternal?

What all are the important books, that are part of Buddhism, other than Dhammapada?

Has anyone seen any meditation master demonstrating abhinna or supernatural powers stated in various suttas and in Visuddhi Magga? I know, most will suggest me to keep practicing meditation to see or experience it by myself. But I would like to hear from modern day people about their practical experiences, not from the suttas and texts. PS: It's not about starting a debate. Basically it's just yes/no answer based on practical experiences. I would love to hear it.

From a scriptural point of view, Buddha did not forbid the consumption of meat, let alone animal products etc., but what we do know is that 'Right Livelihood' tells us to not work as a butcher. Put in modern context, do Buddhist practitioners have a moral responsibility to become vegan? Can abuse, exploitation, commodification, torturing & unnecessary killing of sentient animals ever be morally justified in our modern day & age, where plenty of alternatives are readily available? Once we know about the abattoir's conditions around the world, we are informed & we thereby have to take kammic responsibility, otherwise we will partake in the deaths of trillion animals, due to our demand for animal products.

In this video, a monk tried to draw a distinction between "mythology" and "history facts" ... [Ajahn Sujato - Buddhist Mythology - The Sacred and the Profane - Part 3](https://youtu.be/QgSj6Wa9vPA) ... saying that "Mythology" just has a community (identification) purpose. Yet my person's thought was, "and how is that different to 'factual' history (aside that it faster changes)?" How can "mythology" ([Anussava](https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?page=45)) , and "history" (perhaps thought as [Itivea](https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?page=119)?) , be seriously distinguished, if possible? And how should the past be seen, grasped, in accordance with the path, practice? What kind of mythology, history, and *anussati* (bringing into present) is conductive for one's way, toward long-time happiness and beyond? *(Note that this is not asked for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for good undertakings toward release from this wheel)*

There are lots of Koans on the internet, but I am not sure if there is some sort of process that a Koan must go through, or if there is some sort of list of Koans that are taught and that new ones are not added. Meaning, if a Koan is just made up on the spot by some random person, and the Koan is unrelated to the core principals of Zazen, I presume it wouldn't be taught by a Japanese Zen master. Which leads me to believe that there are some sort of "canon" of Koans.

I've seen in plenty of discussions and threads that there are some criteria to keep in mind while trying to separate the "real Dhamma" from the "fake" one. For example, in [AN 11:13](https://suttacentral.net/an11.13/en/sujato) there is a fragment which tell us that: >The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very life, **immediately effective**, inviting inspection, relevant, so that **sensible people can know it for themselves**. A few questions: 1) When differentiating between teachings, should we consider all these quatities at the same time? Or should we pick one over the others? 2) If some teaching is not inmediately effective, but the results (as described in the suttas) are seen after a long, dedicated practice, should we discard that teaching? 3) If a practicant is not able to perceive something described in the suttas inmediately, should we discard such suttas a priori, or should he/she consider the possibility of not being "sensible" enough (i.e. not having reached the minimum level of spiritual maturity for perceiving such X aspect of the Teaching)? 4) How can we know if some alleged result is not perceived due to my own current lack of experience, or if it's because the teaching is false? Thanks in advance for your time and patience. Kind regards!

I would like to know if there exist a PDF version of Tripitaka which is compatible with an eBook reader(Kindle, Kobo alike)?

When it seems inhumane, why is it practiced? I know Buddha didn't find. Wikipedia document says: > [Sky burial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial) (Tibetan: བྱ་གཏོར་, Wylie: bya gtor, lit. "bird-scattered" is a funeral practice in. which a human corpse is placed on a. mountaintop to decompose while exposed to. the elements or to be eaten by scavenging. animals, especially carrion birds. So are people still doing this kind of funeral practice? And what is meaning of it? Though the body is decomposed and exposed to the elements, this isn't seem a respectful way to do.

My person just came across [an answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19948/11235) by Upasak Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena, mentioning: >Also there is a concept of Pin Potha, which is a journal of all good deeds done. And >It is an age old custom of the Sri Lankan Buddhists to maintain a record of One's meritorious activities. This record is named PIN POTHA or Merit Book. Since such is not only a perfect daily reflection means, fitting in the praised [Anussatis](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/index-subject_en.html#recollections) : Recollection of one's own virtues (silanussati), Recollection of one's own generosity (caganussati), Recollection of the own qualities equal the devas (devatanussati), but also as telling, reminding very sick and dying people on their good deeds as support, my person wonders whether this custom is still alive. Is such, keeping records of ones merits done, still practiced in Sri Lanka? And, since it can be used perfect also for the practice of sharing merits and the practice of rejoicing in merits, my person wonders if there are ideas how to make the basic practices more virtual, vital, knowing that modern people are hardly to motivate toward the basic practices. They might possible needs such as a "reputation system", possible implemented in other daily used software or online services. [Some "experiments" had been done to encourage the nearly death basic section, such as [Anumodana](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anumodana/) or mail-list, next to [a section in use](http://sangham.net/index.php/board,5.0.html) , to get some ideas.] *(Note that this is not given for use for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but for encouragement toward release and benefical undertakings toward such)*

What are the four wheels and nine doors mentioned in the sutta below? Why is it "born from a bog"? What is the meaning of the sutta? From the Four Wheels Sutta (Sutta Nipata 1.29) : > “Having four wheels and nine doors, > Filled up and bound with greed, > Born from a bog, O great hero! > How does one escape from it?” > > “Having cut the thong and the strap, > Having cut off evil desire and greed, > Having drawn out craving with its root: > Thus one escapes from it.”

In the Pali, nirujjhati (ni + rudh + ya) appears to be a verb for the noun "nirodha". > *nirujjhati* > >*ceases; dissolves; vanishes.* > >*to be broken up, to be dissolved, to be destroyed, to cease, die* Uparujjhati (upa + rudh + ya) appears similar in etymology, however differs in the prefix. > *uparujjhati* > > *stops or ceases* > > *to be stopped, broken, annihilated, destroyed* I have done some examination of the usage of these words in the Pali suttas and, for now, I think their meanings or usages are contextually different. How can these two words be linguistically distinguished?

Do enlightened people "know" what nirvana is like? Obviously, they can't express it to anyone else, so the question isn't super helpful. I just wondered whether nirvana is a thing that we can know as well as experience or taste. One response, one I don't (personally) want to hear about (at least without some in depth quotation) is that nirvana isn't "like" anything. And, of course, nirvana isn't similar to anything. I'm asking whether Buddhas of any sort "know" the qualities (e.g. bliss) of nirvana.

What is the orthodox position or the sutta's position about the knowledge of reality itself, beyond any intervention of subjective factors? In science, when we find evidence that proves some hypothesis, we cannot say that we've found the truth behind the studied phenomenon. We can only say that, until this point, the hypothesis works and it's useful to explain that phenomenon, and that, until refuted, we can use that hypothesis as a provisional working hypothesis, which is subject to eventual modification. In sum, science help us to find the most useful ideas to use in our lives. Does this apply to Dhamma as well? Evidence, (no matter how much evidence, whether theoretical or experiencial) is not enough to posit that the truth has been reached without any posible future refutation. Let me ask this with an example: We can say that the khandhas are not the self, but does that imply that there is not self at all? How can we reach that conclusion without any doubts? Isn't better to simply say that we cannot know, and that it shouldn't matter at all? After all, if something is beyond the realm of experience, we shouldn't be able to say anything about it. EDIT: a few more details... Is Buddhism concerned with ontology (how and what thinfs are by themselves, and not only how we humans perceive them), epistemology (the possiblity of knowing things about reality itself, objectively) or pragmatism (to use whatever seem to work for some specific end)? Is it concerned with all of them, some of them, or none of them? Pragmatism, for example, doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, and technology and scientific progress seem to be evidence for that. The problem lies in assuming that this -unknown- degree of certainty is somehow the same as the truth (or the expression of all possible definition or information about a phenomenon). If we arrive to the truth, how could we know? Because of a certain X amount of evidence? How much evidence is indication of reaching the truth? Or in other words, is enlightenment enough and definitive proof of having reached the truth about reality itself? Does it even matter if it works? After all, some physicist, in the 19th century, thought that there only a few stuff left to be known about reality, because apparently, there was no important evidence to suggest or indicate that the current theories and hypothesis were wrong nor incomplete. Thanks for your time and patience! Kind regards!

From [Pratītyasamutpāda - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da#Twelve_Nidanas) : >dependent origination refers to nothing else but the process of mental conditioning as described by the twelve nidanas So to check if my understanding is correct, will dependent origination cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas? In my understanding, dependant origination is just an extended understanding of "condition". For example, if I say "plants need water, soil and light to grow", then water, soil and light are the originations. This doesn't seem to relate to the mental condition of the observer. So how do the two relate? And in general, how does one know that all dependent originations of a thing are "depleted"?

I have read in psychological studies that oxytocin and serotonin interact to produce social rewards . Serotonin has been postulated to relate to authentic pride (a positive kind of pride based on accomplishment). Oxytocin is a hormone linked with compassion. Therefore, it would seem natural that pride and compassion relate in some way. Even, I will say that when I meditated on compassion, imagery of altruistic pride naturally emerged. Recently, I'm in a more depressed state -- which may entail less serotonin -- and the pride imagery fails to occur as well as the reward. My question is: **is there any evidence of such an interaction between compassion and pride in Buddhism?** I feel naturally emptiness entails an interaction with compassion in the Mahayana, but I feel pride would be linked with desire and materiality. Authentic pride is based on accomplishment, not feeling superior to others (hubristic pride). **Does Buddhism have a place for such attachment?**

What Internet-based Sangha groups are out there? For the Plum Village tradition there is a list on [plumline.org](http://plumline.org/) Are there any other lists of online Sanghas you can share? Grateful for help and with kind regards, Tord

Upon reading this question, I wondered: would a person with great spiritual potential, without compassion, be more likely to cause great harm than an average person? Not intentionally, but say due to anger or hate; would this person be akin to a politician with great power who's actions can affect more? **Thus, would spiritual potent individuals' actions have greater consequences under the effect of negative states?**