Is it always wrong to consider oneself wise? I don't mean consider oneself an important Buddhist, or one who has attained such and such a level of absorption or success along the path to enlightenment, but something more mundane, being wise and able to tell e.g. what is a fake way of behaving, or the difference between right and wrong.

The Kālāma Sutta is often cited with approval by Modernist Buddhists as affirming a Libertarian ideology in which one need not take cognisance of anyone else's opinions or group norms, but one can simply decide for oneself what is important and meaningful. > "Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement." (As good a definition as any) The part of the text so often cited is the negative criteria for decision making: > “Here Kālāmas: don't use revelation, don't use lineage, don't use quotations, don't use tradition; don't use speculation, don't use inference, don't use signs, don't use understanding based on views, don't uncritically accept what seems likely; don't use respect for a *sāmaṇa*. When you know for yourselves "these things are unskilful, offensive (sāvajja), criticised by the wise, these things undertaken and accomplished result in harm and misery‟ then you should abandon them.” My translation The negative criteria are phrased in Pāḷi as, for example *mā anussavena*, i.e. the prohibitive particle (*mā*) with an noun in the instrumental case and no verb. So in fact it is difficult to tell what the prohibition refers to except from the context. Buddhaghosa supplies the verb *gaṇhittha*, the past participle of *gaṇhati* "to grasp". So his view seems to be that the first criteria is "don't be gripped by revelation". The context shows that these are various means for making decisions about how to behave. They are not used for testing the validity of beliefs. - Does the Kālāma Sutta really encourage libertarianism? - Why do people read the negative criteria as referring to test beliefs? - Do the Kālāmas themselves embody Libertarianism in their own lives, in this or any other sutra?

What, if anything, did the Buddha teach about following the most secure path vs venturing out on an unknown but possibly more fullfilling path? To start off, I am very new to Buddhism but am putting great weight into its teachings. This means I am unfamiliar with many teachings. This question is meant to be general but the context in which I began meditating on it was this: - I work at a company which has been stable and provided decent livelihood for my family - I have been all but offerred a job at a new employer in the same field - It is possible that it will provide me with more opportunities for my family in the long term - It is also possible that it will not degrade but not improve our situation The internal debate I am having is over the right course of action in these situations. I tend to favor safe bets/routine against taking chances. This is where I would like some guidance if it can be provided.

Recently sloth and torpor has been a huge hindrance in meditation; my biggest hindrance as it happens. I've managed to reduce the bulk of it but I find that it's still hanging around in some sessions. For the most part, I can see sloth and torpor trying to engulf me and thus am able to take evasive action by refocusing my meditative state. Sometimes though, it gets me even to the point of falling asleep. It's been with me now for months on and off. 18 months previous to this it hasn't really effected me like it has now. Here are some descriptions of the hindrance in question: Heaviness of mind, like wading through oil. Tiredness when I don't appear to be tired outside of meditation. Falling asleep. Dullness of mind. Sinking into a gloop. The Buddha compared it to (I'm paraphrasing here) being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell, unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. The largely recommended antidote by my sangha is to rouse energy by exerting myself outside of meditation. This has not been helpful or perhaps I'm not receiving the message correctly. It seems to be more of a mind thing and that is the route I'd like to take to address it so I've been sitting and watching and trying to evade it. I just can't seem to eliminate it completely. I have some sessions where I am free of it and some sessions that start out with meditative potential only to be confronted some-way through the session with the dealings of sloth and torpor. Things I've tried: bright light from a light box and also from daylight, light exercise before meditation, opening my eyes in mid-session, water on my face before a session.

I'm interested in Event planning & if I take up that job I'll have to make necessary arrangements for liqour & meat to be served at events upon client request. I'd like to know if that is considered as a sin according to Buddhism? Thank you, May the nobel triple gem bless you!

After reading Ajahn Brahm , Leigh Brasington , and Ayya Khema's books on meditation, I have not been able to reach the jhanas through breath meditation. If I stay with the breath long enough to reach "access concentration", or at least, if the breath does become fine and imperceptable, I do not experience any bliss or pleasant feelings, and my mind asks, "Now what? Nothing is happening." Are there stories of the Buddha recommending different styles of meditation (for concentration leading to jhana) depending on the individual disposition of the listener? I've struggled with aversion and craving not to be. So would the Buddha, for example, prescribe metta meditation here? Please give references. Thank you.

I am only 2 months into meditating and I've been having some problems. I am unsure whether I truly have the behavioral/thought patterns that are considered ADHD and/or OCD, but for a while I've been noticing symptoms for a while now. The problem I am having during meditation is I overthink things to the extreme. I start thinking about whether I am doing it right. Then I overthink so much that I can't even focus on anything else anymore. I have this problem with reading as well. I start thinking about whether Im reading properly and then my mind starts going into overdrive trying to make sure I do every single detail perfectly but instead my brain just fries up and I can't do anything anymore. Then frustration and doubt sets in and it gets even worse. I know that this is an overall problem that I need to work on and fix. I am working on it. But I would really appreciate any tips on this for now as I feel it is quite a barrier in my process. EDIT: I came to the realization that I need to remember that those "symptoms" or behavioral patterns are just thoughts accompanied by strong emotions. As with any other thought, acknowledge and let go.

In our local group we are working with Dön Dün Chu, the 70 points (from Abhisamayalankara) by Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsan . In I.7 (putting on the armor) the 6 paramitas are mentioned. It is said that they interlock in a cross product, meaning there are actually 36 resulting traits to consider in your practise. 1. generosity, giving of oneself (sbyin-pa) 2. virtue, morality, discipline, proper conduct (tshul-khrims) 3. patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance (bzod-pa) 4. energy, diligence, vigor, effort (brtson-’grus) 5. one-pointed concentration, contemplation (bsam-gtan) 6. wisdom, insight (shes-rab) Now, I have my problems understanding two things: where is the difference between n\*m and m\*n? And what is n\*n (reflexive)? I could not find any sources on that and my teacher had no time to answer this in detail. The reflexive relations only make sense to me as in "generosity *in general*" for example but I heard there is more to it. Maybe I need starting help as in how to connect each point with the others.

If a warrior chooses to leave the battlefield, he will be humiliated by his country men therefore losing his respect. Buddhist monks have attained great peace even by letting go humiliation. Is this respect or social status an ego? Is it a part of human emotions just like happiness & sadness. Does social status or respect exists?

When declared Buddhists and Eastern Asians in general quickly pray next to graves and altars in silence, what kinds of thoughts go on their minds? Of course, it's not possible to read people's minds, but how are they taught to pray in such occasions and places? I'm curious especially about non-practicing Buddhists who aren't very religious in general and may not know things like mantras by heart, but still do that.

Example: I see something moving, there's **contact**. Then there's an unpleasant **feeling** and **perception** recognize it as a spider. **Mental formations** on how to deal with the "threat" of a spider arises. A new **consciousness** is born. Does it contain the mental formation that caused it to arise? Thank you

To further refine the question: the falling away of saññā (perception), for instance, may leave behind a sense of wholeness, awe and wonder as there is no longer the conditioned interpretation of the world; there is no longer a tree, a cloud or a person in the sense of their words. All divisions thus cease to be and the tree, cloud and person (everything) are seen in their glorious enigmatic depth and wonder. Forms cannot merely be confined to single words - so I've learned! In another instance, the absence of rūpa (forms) could produce a sense of emptiness or spaciousness where one is intensely conscious of the space around forms but also sees that this same space pervades the very nature of forms themselves. Note: I'm not referring to 'emptiness' in the fullest sense of the Buddhist interpretation but more just generally. I believe the trick is to see through all aggregates to make the ultimate realisation.

In this wiki article it says Devdutta is his Brother in law but how?

As we all know, the Buddha taught that everything is about mind -- including for example that Dukkha exists because of mind, because desire came into mind first no matter if it would affect us physically, because the main stream is the mind. Even when the Buddha wasn't able to walk, yet he was enlightened. So I would also ask if physical health would ever affect mind or mental health? What about breaking precepts if it's matter of health -- for example if I'm suffering from headache then I can have aromatic therapy, or medicine including a little alcohol, or listening to music like that. Why is the body important when one is enlightened or mindful? Can't we ignore what is happening with our body, and concentrate still on being calm, and focus on mind?

I was reading an article on Tricycle written by Thich Nhat Hanh, in which he quotes Buddha as follows: > “My practice is the nonpractice, the attainment of nonattainment.” From which text is this quote taken?

Understand that meditation helps to calm one's mind and does it also helps one get less agitated and less affected towards the unnecessary? What about chanting? Does it also have the same effect? If one is patient and he/she naturally will not get frustrated easily and not easily irritated by minor stuffs. That does not mean he/she meditated or chanted to achieve such state of mind? I'm actually asking for myself. I'm not much of a patience person, short-tempered at times. I don't meditate but i do brief chanting occasionally. I used to do chanting when I was little and looking back, I feel like life was a little better back then and possibly less frustrated, not sure if it has anything to do with chanting. Growing up, I felt as if life was so injustice and merciless and often got angry at myself and things around me. Probably I care too much, i'm not sure. Things may not get on somebody else nerve but to me, it was so easy! At work, at home, my surrounding, everything just seems so tough on me. So I don't know what helps.

**Is hidding or cheating about ones identity unskilful and probably harmful for others as well?** Food for consideration to answer: - A, in many ways, related [topic](https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=33010) . - A [Sutta](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.05.than_en.html) - A clear [warning](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than_en.html#iti-025) if detected as deliberately. - Some points on [personal datas](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,449.0.html#post_engl) , [Monks and Noble people](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,8726.msg15429.html#msg15429) ... as kamma-vipaka do not care about status. To challenge the question and arguments for clearance. *[Note: this gift of Dhamma is not thought to be for any trade, wordily stakes or exchange]*

Just as in Buddhism one's *views* and *self* are questions of importance for well being, I noticed my difficulties relating to spirituality relate precisely to those two topics. On the one hand, I don't hold the belief in the intrinsic existence of the self and of views in general. On the other hand, in writings I produce there arises views and self-related imagery which betray an attachment to those two things. In my fiction, there's great and visible conceit, a kind of obvious self-valuing. In the theoretical texts I write, the valuing of certain views is obvious. In both cases, it seems more a question of **attached valuing** than truly holding definitely those things as true. **Why am I valuing these (created views and self) with cherishing and esteeming, but still feel (perhaps out of some delusion) that they are not intrinsically real? What are the mental factors involved?**

Very respectfully,i am very much new to this community but have always been interested in Buddhism. I know some people who are Buddhist and they often talk about being one with the universe or being the part of it, literally. How does that work? I mean are we born from universe and when we say the word "universe", what exactly do we mean?

Friends, I was surfing online on buddhist ethics and came across International Buddhist Ethics Committee and Buddhist Tribunal of Human Rights. https://buddhistcourt-gov.net The tribunal is based out of Hong Kong and conducts trials on countries like Indonesia, organizations like unesco and also Individuals like Ken wilbur, pronouncing verdicts and publishing them online in general forums http://www.integralworld.net/visser110.html http://www.academia.edu/30820216/Judgement_of_Case_Indonesia http://www.academia.edu/34125176/Ethical_Judgment_on_UNESCO The President and Judge of Buddhist Tribunal of Himan Rights is Maitreya Samyaksambuddha https://maitriyana.in/master-maitreya-samyaksambuddha/ Has anybody heard of this tribunal? Is it a private organization or an affiliate of a legal Buddhist body?