Let's say a person were to seek for, and enter a monogamous heterosexual relationship and eventually marriage, but actually he or she is either homosexual or bisexual (but more inclined to homosexuality). This person may genuinely believe that he or she can live the heterosexual lifestyle and marriage, and persevere in making it successful, without infidelity, despite not being intrinsically or naturally heterosexual. This may be due to conforming to social norms, local laws (where same-sex marriages and homosexuality may be illegal) and parental expectations, plus the desire to have one's own biological children, the normal way. This person may also avoid openly telling this to their prospective partner, otherwise they may lose their chance at being accepted. Would this be violating the fourth precept of not telling lies (and not being dishonest)? How should this person approach this situation instead?

Iirc there is a text where the Buddha called a monk "janitor" for being devoted to cleaning. It's probably in the Dhp commentary but i am not sure. Two monks ordained, one spent his time practicing whereas the other was cleaning a lot & criticizing the meditator.

As I underestand, buddhists beliefe there is no-self, means no permanent soul in creatures like us humans. Would a buddhist say, we all are part of one absolute consciousness? If so, is the degree of enlightenment someone has equivalent to the area of the absolute consciousness someone experiences? In other words: A buddha is 100% enlightend and thus he is equal to absolute consciousness? Sorry this sounds way to mathemetical, but I'm relatively new to buddhism, so I don't know the right words. Hope you can help me.

The question aims towards to creating a new life and not to the desire from which said life is concived. Other way of this question would be: the act of giving a life which can be seen as a being with it's own karma, creates more karma to one self? Has the buddha ever talked about this?

I am hopeful that I will attain Anatta. After I attain Anatta I will cease to be expressible. That hope motivates me to give up the clinging to forms, feeling , perception , consciousness etc... But what about the clinging to the hope of getting Nirvana...? Should I give up hope of getting Nirvana in order to achieve Anatta or Nirvana ?

While reading Pa Auk Sayadaw I came across the following: > The bhavanga-consciousness is bright and luminous, and looks like a mirror in the heart: that is the mind-door. This seems to have qualities similar to: > In Dzogchen the fundamental, inherent nature of everything is called the "Ground Luminosity" or the "Mother Luminosity." Are these two qualities of mind related?

Whether it is booking a flight ticket, hotel room, buying an electronic gadget etc there are so many online stores which offer so many deals, that I spend a good deal of time finding the right deal, before spending. Furthermore, where I belong its common to haggle with shopkeepers to get a good deal. And then, I occasionally donate money to some cause as Dana. That makes me think, what is the real purpose of Dana? Is it more about detachment from material possessions and sharing one's merits/ earnings with others to dissolve the ego or is it more about helping those in need? If it is the former, I might not as well worry about haggling with a shopkeeper or try finding a good deal online, and buy things at first sight, with metta to the seller considering I have donated the amount I could have bargained for to him. If it is the latter, I continue finding good deals and then donate the saved up money to those "I feel" (very subjective) are in need. So, how can Dana be explained in this context?

Is the modern idea of unconditional access to knowledge, teachings, supported by the Noble Ones, or maybe even seen as cause of decay and not benefical for many as well as the tradition? What are then the conditions that one gains to be taught certain levels? How are those teaching without care of possible required conditions regarded by the teacher and elders?

I do know alms giving is a chance for lay people to do good deeds, however I do not see the right intention of the monk. I feel the compassion is one sided. A lay person becomes homeless not because he has compassion for the lay people, but for himself first. If his first intention is true, how can we say while receiving alms his intention has changed and now has compassion for lay people only so that he can survive, meditate and attain nibbana? What if lay people did not exists? What would be the condition for a buddhist monk not to exist. As long as there are lay people, monks will exist too? I feel there is a ego behind monks receving alms. It is explained that buddha wanted monks to spend more time meditating rather than cooking or growing own food. The exchange and doubling of merits is a business minded solution. A lay person works very hard and it would not be proper to use anyone just to satisfy there own ego using a business minded approach very similar to slavery. How different is a buddhist monk from a hindu brahman or a christian priest, where they always need an offering to satisfy there gods. May be the monks feel they have understood more, but the truth has not changed. The give and take has not stopped, the approach is same and the reason is not different either. I feel the lay people giving alms is only satisfying the monk needs to attain nibbana. I do understand the good deed part, but out of compassion, I personally not want to receive food from someone who has taken so much effort to earn it. Lay people are not slaves, do buddhist monks need food of lay people ?

This answer stated that: > Even if you sit in the dark and do nothing, you can still be creating > bad Kamma. It depends on whether you have Samma Sati or not. Whatever > you do can create bad Karma as long as your thoughts are defiled with > craving, aversion and ignorance. So ALL thoughts that are defiled with craving, aversion and ignorance (lobha, dosa, moha) create bad karma? So does it mean when we want something (for example, I want to go to X country for my next vacation), does that thought creates bad karma because such thought is rooted in lobha (craving)?

As Hinduism was a prominent religion of the Buddha's time (though not in today's unified form ), Buddha must have learnt about the Gita and krishna's philosophy. In fact, the Buddha's karma philosophy and the notion of 'skillful karma' ( performing actions as duty without getting attached to it) seem to be too close to Krishna's karma yoga philosophy to find any difference. Is there any reference to the Gita or Krishna in Buddhist texts?

Empathy defined as > the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Is there any discussion or steps to improve or a skillful way to utilize empathy mentioned anywhere in the suttas? scriptures

Let's look at Alice and Bob. I'm going to emphasize gender roles on purpose, because the gender you were born as is not random. Bob is a naturally powerful, intelligent, strong man who started his adult life as a solder. Every war he fought in was just and he was always on the good guy's side, and every man he shot was evil and deserved it. Eventually after he is honorably discharged he ends up in a position of high authority, say a criminal judge. He sorts out good people from the bad and doles out what they deserve, and due to his great wisdom he never made a mistake in judgement or caused a miscarriage of justice. Alice is a weak woman of inconstant and average natural intelligence. She never had what it takes to punish anybody (because of her lack of talents and unremarkableness could she could never end up in a position of authority where she could punish others--not even as a forum moderator who bans trolls) and she was too weak to kill anybody. Now let's look at the summaries of these two lives. While everything Bob did was just and morally correct... that doesn't change the immutable reality that he ended up in a position where he did take life and inflicted suffering on others. That does not exactly look like the reflection of someone who lived his previous life as an arhat. And Alice was fortunate enough where she could never kill or inflict suffering on others... at least in one regard (as a punisher). Even if it was because she never had the opportunity, the fact that she was born in a life without such opportunities is a reflection of something. According to karma, who got the better life, that is, the life more likely to be reborn as either a better human or a being in the higher realms?

Say a soldier can be hired for maybe $100 a day: What would be a suitable price to offer that one would live in accordance with the Dhamma, keeping precepts based on metta for all beings, a day?

What is *anuloma-nana* and how does this adaptation-knowledge makes the switch from the mundane to the supramundane world?

I am a graduate of Islamic metaphysics and theology with a focus on mysticism and mystical philosophy. I have kin interest in spirituality in general. Recently I started trying out meditation. In the past I have had experiences of energy building up in my chest during contemplating mystical works. And I have had attempts at out of body projection without full success yet. But in either cases massive energy building up in my chest has been a familiar occurrence. Now recently that I started the Indian style meditation, i.e. sitting in one place, chasing out thoughts and concentrating on heart beats, while gazing at the back of my closed eyelids, I feel massive energy rushing to my chest, building up there and then rushing further up into my neck. At the same time my upper body starts shaking stronger and stronger. More recently, I felt as if my jugular vein was about to explode and I felt mild pain on the back of neck. I want to know what the heck is this all about? My feeling is that if I continue I may project out of body, as this was the feeling that I had when trying out of body projection back in older days but the pressure becomes almost unbearable. I feel nervous to continue the meditation with these twitchings and sensations.

Happy New Year to you! 😊 I suffer from internal vibrations and PPPD and I've been trying to use meditation to calm my nervous system. Could any of you please suggest what I could do to further this and work on the amygdala too please? I also suffer from chronic fatigue. Thanking you 🙏 Louise

I am trying my best to digest the concept of the non-self but each time it hits a fundumental question, that i can't stop thinking of. If the self is an illusion, what is the point of self awerness meaning self respect, self esteem... is it important to have them in this context.

Jon Kabat Zinn explains that Mindfulness in Asia means 'Heartfulness' He describes integrating buddhist tenets such as beginner's mind, non-judgment, letting go, acceptance, trust, gratitude and generosity into mindfulness as part of informal meditation. My difficulty with my formal and informal meditation practice through the course of the day seems mechanical because I don't know how to cultivate and integrate heart into it. I am aware of my senses. I have the mind be still with little or no thought. But there doesn't seem to be anything warm, understanding, loving or appreciative. It doesn't feel rewarding at all beyond discipline of the mind. I ask myself, if mind must be still and thoughts silent, how to I cultivate matters of the heart in my meditation. Or do I allows for cultivating a 'Heartful' narrative that explores the buddhist tenets mentioned above. It all just feels like cold discipline to me at the moment and nothing more. Please help me understand what mindfulness may look like in the context of heartfulness.

Whenever I get a good meditation, meaning pleasant feelings arise, they subside after some time. I know that's not the goal of meditation and I should let go of anything, not cling to anything. But still, I would like to prolong the post-meditation pleasant sensations and not go back to other emotions. How can that be achieved? After a good sitting of calming down the mind, desires come rushing in, how to deal with that?