I am looking for companies who operate in resonance with the ideas of right livelihood. I have looked for them, but don't seem to be finding any. Does anyone know how to find companies that practice right livelihood? Kind regards, Timothy

I think its essentially the fear of death but I am discouraged/demotivated of continuing on the path of meditation by listening about what is at the end of it. The goal of enlightenment is sounding a bit depressing for me and I am scared of it. Its also the same as my fear of death. I am very much attached to my intellect and thoughts. Its something identify with. Yes my fear comes from being attached with my mind maybe? But ultimately its my mind which has to be convinced to continue. Ofcourse it doesnt want its own "death". After reading things about what will happen after enlightenment, I am backing out. I have tasked the bliss more than once. I know the feeling, its great, its literally the purpose of life. But I am again attached to my mind. Seems like I need an intellectual reason to transcend my intellect.

Buddha as part of the noble eightfold path preached that killing any organism is an unskillful action which results in bad karma. He also preached that every buddhist monk's final aim should be nibbana. In the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, it's mentioned that one cause for earthquake is a monk attaining enlightenment. Earthquakes result in the killing of atleast few organisms. So that should mean a monk should not pursue enlightenment. How does a practicing buddhist monk address this apparent contradiction? Thanks.

In general all Buddhist practice seems to help with the concerns mentioned in the Title. Equanimity helps with all unwanted, changing conditions (from minor challenges to "aging, sickness and death". Lessening (or even losing) the sense of "self" also seems powerful each day and especially on the last one. If anyone, especially anyone currently preparing for the eventual laying down of the body has: insights, dharma, experience (thus far)...please reply.

Recently, I came across an intriguing opinion - Buddha did not believe in rebirth and that his views on the topic stem from some fake suttas. It sparked a thought in my mind that I believe strongly contradict this viewpoint. I wanted to share it with you, and also open it for counter arguments. The argument is structured as follows: if rebirth does not exist, we only live one life, and once we die, we cease to exist. Therefore, what motivation would a person have to renounce worldly attachments and endure the hardships of seeking enlightenment? One might argue that individuals pursue enlightenment to alleviate their suffering. However, it's worth noting that many people lead relatively comfortable lives, experiencing only brief periods of discomfort and ultimately facing death. In fact, those in higher social strata often enjoy luxurious lives and many find fulfillment in them. Given this context, there is no objective reason for them to even considering renouncing their comfortable existence in pursuit of enlightenment? Therefore, if there is no rebirth, enlightenment becomes optional - much like learning mathematics, whcih although is beautiful, is nonetheless optional. We could potentially choose to live our lives and simply "power through" until the end, and be done forever. Or even worse, kill self and be “at peace” forever. If that were a solution, Buddha (assuming he was smart and well intentioned) would have proposed pursuit of enlightenment only to people in bad mental/physical conditions - but he did it universally - which says that its not true. This reasoning is quite convincing to me. I would appreciate hearing any arguments towards non-existence of rebirth and significance of enlightenment assuming it. Your insights are very much appreciated.

In a number of the books I'm reading on Buddhism, and in a number of talks I've heard on the subject, I repeatedly encounter the idea that the Buddha "saw the Dhamma" or that he "witnessed Dhamma" or the like. Other times, I've heard/read that the Buddha "saw" beings dying and taking rebirth, or that he "saw" the reality of anicca, dukkha, anatta, and the Four Noble Truths, etc. I'm having difficulty understanding what this all means. Is this metaphorical sight? Is it literal sight, in the sense of a vision or dream? In terms of our own meditation practices, when we are told that we should "see" certain things, e.g. seeing a nimitta, should we expect something similar? Metaphorical "sight"? Literal sight? Something else entirely? Thanks!

What is the Buddhist view on crying? I don't remember hearing or reading about the Buddha ever crying. Is crying a consequence of "lack of understanding" of the ultimate reality?

I asked this question in Philosophy and was advised to ask the question here on Buddhism as I may get better answers HERE. So I am pursuing Spirituality for quite some time now, I've had REALISATIONS but not the Proverbial Self-Realisation because questions remain. So was kinda wondering what is it EXACTLY that they realise. I've been told, you realise, "YOU ARE THE ONE" but it does nothing to me, no effect. So DEFINITELY IT'S NOT THE WORDS. What is it then?

It seems the goal of Buddhist practice is to become an Arahant - someone who won't take a rebirth, and therefore will be eternally relieved from suffering. But WHO is this someone who doesn't get reborn? I mean if there never was a self to begin with, then who exactly achieved Nirvana? Seriously, this line of thought is screwing up my motivation. All this work, just so someone who doesn't exist yet, and never will, doesn't have to suffer. Buddhism doesn't promise relief from suffering in the current lifetime, in fact it guarantees us we'll all die, and most of us will suffer from sickness and old age (not to mention loads of other suffering), but it promises an end by not taking a rebirth - but the whole concept of rebirth is made utterly confusing by the concept of non-self.

Some drugs, like ecstasy, help build empathy and help our mind see things from a different point of view. What about if meditation is the obsolete ways to see enlightment and perhaps drugs are the easier ways?

If consciousness/awareness as the 5th skandha is impermanent (?), shouldn't it cease to exist when entering Paranirvana? But in SN 22.53 the Buddha says: > "If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then > owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there > is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, > not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it > is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its > contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is > totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the > holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this > world.'" Here cuddlyable3 answers with a quote which says that: > - Damien Keown states: Nirvana [...] involves a radically transformed state of consciousness which is free of the obsession with ‘me and > mine’ > - when a person attains nirvana, they are liberated from ordinary rebirth. When such a person dies, their physical body disintegrates > and their consciousness is said to be completely liberated. They are > not reborn in the ordinary sense. Their consciousness does not take > rebirth into a physical form > - terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in the case of an Arahant, because those things—matter, sensation, perception, mental > activities, consciousness—with which the terms like ‘born’ and ‘not > born’ are associated, are completely destroyed and uprooted, never to > rise again after his death Doesn't the last point contradict with the others? For me it makes much sense that consciousness is that which gets enlightened and that Nirvana is the state of free, liberated consciousness. I mean if everything what I am, even consciousness, which I think I ultimately am, vanishes, why should I pursue enlightenment then? Thank you.

Equivalently, is there any Buddhism with room for accepting a person who subsequently chooses to return to material drives as having, in any valid sense, "been enlightened"?

In the Jewish tradition of Hassidut Chabad, there's a well-known story about the need to be ready to abandon practice towards enlightenment in favor of compassionate action which is the manifestation of enlightenment itself. Here's the story ([source](https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/1973508/jewish/Heeding-the-Cry-of-a-Child.htm)) : >The Alter Rebbe shared his house with his oldest married son, Rabbi Dov Ber (who later succeeded him as the Mitteler Rebbe). Rabbi Dov Ber was known for his unusual power of concentration. Once, when Rabbi Dov Ber was engrossed in learning, his baby, sleeping in its cradle nearby, fell out and began to cry. The infant’s father did not hear the baby’s cries. But the infant’s grandfather, the Alter Rebbe, also engrossed in his studies in his room on the upper floor at the time, most certainly did. He interrupted his studies, went downstairs, picked the baby up, soothed it and replaced it in its cradle. Through all this Rabbi Dov Ber remained quite oblivious. > >Subsequently, the Alter Rebbe admonished his son: “No matter how engrossed one may be in the loftiest occupation, one must never remain insensitive to the cry of a child.” Is there a similar story in the Buddhism tradition, with a similar message?

If someone at their deathbed feels like they lived a good enough life and don't need anything anymore, then they ceased carving right? Did they become Buddhas? Their last mindstream's moment will not be conditioned by craving, so no rebirth right?

According to Theravadic Buddhism there’s no self. Self is an emergent illusion of a collection of smaller entities ( citta, chaithasika etc), in the same way, the physical body is an emergent result of the 5 elements (āpo, thejo etc.). This is also somewhat coherent with modern scientific understanding, which explains mind/self is an emergent result of chemical reactions in the brain. Modern science is also on the path which states there is no free will, but rather responces and interactions to stimuli in a complex system. My main question here is, if there is no self in Buddhism, what is the meaning of the concept of taking the right-effort (viriya) to attain nirvana, as there’s no actual actor to exert an effort? Conscious action itself is an illusion and there was no control for an alleged self in the first place. There never was an actor, and there never were conscious actions. Everything was an emergent illusion. So why talk about exerting an effort to reach Nirvana?

A number of people have become enlightened since Shakyamuni Buddha's realization of the truths. I'm curious as to who the latest person to have obtain enlightenment and become a Buddha is (as considered by the consensus of Buddhists)?

How did different people with different philosophies and ideologies attain the same enlightenment or did they not? Buddha attained enlightenment and so did Adi Shankaracharya, but their philosophies are different (not to mention ramanujacharya, nagarjuna and many others). Or is it the case that we can never really know who attains enlightenment? Well I know that there is similarity between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta but at the core they are very different. How did they attain the same enlightenment knowing the real truth in two different ways? At least one of them is wrong. Well some say the truth can be interpreted in different ways but if advaita says self exists and buddhism denies it there is a big problem you can't make them compatible with one another.

Is there any person who is widely believed to be enlightened by Buddhists, and who confirms that himself/herself?

At first glance both of them might seem like 2 fundamentally diametrical opposites. Nietzsche believed that a fundamental truth of life was that "the strong always oppress the weak", and that morality is simply another means through which this is achieved (Christian morality vs the nobility). Throughout his books, he heavily critizes the idea, that an objective truth and morality exists. He therefore rejects the absolute value of morality and comes up with the will of power, which ultimately guides all behaviour. The Ubermensch is the person who lets his behaviour be guided by the will of power and is not contstrained by morality, the idea of The Overman being the Nietzschean interpretation of Enlightenment, you could say. Ultimately, a striking similarity between them is the lack of objective morals - according to buddhism, what is deemed good or not is relative to whether it brings an individual towards enlightenment or not, meaning that it rejects the idea of objective morality (corect me if im wrong). I think that both philosophies perceive morality in an utilitarian perspective, not an objective one. They both make the individual want to strive towards enlightenment, the means through which it's achieved being subjective and relative to each individual.

I'm pretty new to Buddhism, so I'm not very knowledgeable about what's most commonly considered as the path towards enlightenment. I already have a pretty subjective idea of it - I have to unify my mind through rigorous and diligent meditation in order to create fruitful conditions in which insightful experiences would emerge from, subsequently leading into enlightenment.