Can lying be the correct action in certain situations? Bhikkhu Bodhi gave an example of a situation where lying might be appropriate: In World War II some nice people would hide those oppressed by the Nazis. If Nazis come and ask these nice people if they are hiding Jewish people, would it be the appropriate action to tell the truth?

For a long time I've been really into the space of longevity, both radical lifespan extension through biotechnology and the optimization of quality of life during old age (healthspan extension) through currently available protocols on diet, exercise, sleep, meditation, etc. I'm really interested in the Buddhist perspective on this movement, especially how different schools (Thai Forest, Soto Zen, Plum Village, IMS/IMC, Chinese Chan, Chinese Pure Land, Tibetan Vajrayana, and Sri Lanka Theravada) might perceive it differently. My #1 core value is to live as long and healthy as possible, both physically and mentally. I got into Buddhism, because it seems like a comprehensive and effective framework in supporting individuals' mental well-being, especially during old age. I think that if you are not going to have any children, then you have to embrace some kind of spirituality system to offset the very real and catastrophic effects of loneliness and stress on your health and lifespan. Your mind won't be kind to yourself as you get older, and you have to love something other than yourself to be sane. Which Buddhist tradition do you think is the most compatible with this very new kind of value (life is good and I wanna live as long and healthy as possible) that has emerged in a community only very recently, thanks to technology and urban life enabling such a person? (r/longevity, r/peterattia, and r/Biohackers) Thai Forest, Soto Zen, Plum Village, IMS/IMC, Chinese Chan, Chinese Pure Land, Tibetan Vajrayana, and Sri Lanka Theravada? I know some aspects of Buddhist philosophy are very much contradictory to this goal (think The Five Remembrances in Buddhism, contemplations on impermanence: that we will grow old, that we will get sick, that we will die, that all that is dear to us will change and we will be separated from it, and that our actions are our only true belongings, and we will inherit their consequences). So one of my concerns is that if I'm practicing with a tradition that emphasizes those aspects, it would eventually lead to cognitive dissonance/internal conflicts, creating additional stressors in my life. I know I tend to get very hysterical/neurotic and compulsive about these things, so it's good to give these extra thoughts to it before deciding.

I came across a Vaishnava critique of Buddhism which questions whether Buddhist ethics can have a stable foundation without having the concept of devotion to a supreme God. Quoting the excerpt from here > **what is the problem with Buddhism?** > > Before the advent of Sri Shankara Acharya, Lord Buddha (Sriman > nArAyaNa Himself on the authority of srimad BhAgavata PurANa) has > given an illusory theory for the people of material consciousness and > made them adharmic with His excellent philosophy (Lord is beyond our > perception and His actions are in-conceivable without guidant of > Acharyas). He gave a philosophy based on moral laws, athiesm, denial > of vedas and illusory "nirvANa(viodness)". His instructions are somuch > attractive that any person who is not adherant to vedas and devotion > unto the Lord gets easily carried away. He lures unintelligent men by > saying only intelligent men can understand His philosophy. That > enables people not to investigate His philosophy critically and > accept. Moreover, on the surface, one cannot find fault as it is based > on moral laws like non-violence and truthfulness. Even today many > people think philonthropic actions and being good is ultimate purpose > of life. But they miss the critical point why should one do either > philonthropic or good works. They have no clue what actual good is. > The purpose of all good actions is to attract the attention of the > Lord and get pure devotion unto Him. > > When we do not develop love for the Supreme Lord, we lose all our > morals and dharma at some point or the other. We are never independant > of Him. As we can see today, in countries like china, people lost > their own religion, forgot all good (their own moral laws), consume > more meat (including frogs and snakes) than any other country, and > work day and night like machines to improve material comforts. This > proves, how it is most important to have mercy of the Lord for the > living entity to have ethical life and subsequent desire for eternal > bliss (liberation). Lord doesnot allow selfish people to serve Him, > for He accepts only unselfish, unbroken devotional service. We should > know from this example that acting in all good ways is only to develop > love for the Lord. According to this critique, without divine guidance and devotion, ethical conduct eventually collapses, and moral laws lose their meaning. How would Buddhists respond to this critique and provide a solid basis for morality and ethical behavior within their philosophical framework, given that Buddhism does not ground ethics in pleasing or serving a personal God?

If there's no specific purpose in life, If we have to give meaning to life by ourselves, then why doing good and bad matters ?

What are some kind, wholesome, skillful, wise and helpful responses and views to the following various claims of body ownership: “The United States government claims 100% ownership over all your DNA and reproductive rights. This astonishing revelation has emerged from the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office claims the power to assign ownership of your DNA to private companies and universities who apply for patents on your genes. To date, more than 4,000 genes have been assigned ownership to corporations and universities by the U.S. patent office. Such an assignment of ownership proves that the government believes it owns 100% of all human genes -- you cannot transfer ownership of something unless you first own it yourself. To date, 20 percent of your genetic code is owned by someone else. About two-thirds of these patents belong to private companies, and one-third belong to universities. The company that owns the most patents is called Incyte, a drug company based in California which "owns" the patents on 2,000 human genes.” Via https://www.naturalnews.com/040400_gene_patents_genetic_slavery_human_DNA.html And from 2012 via http://anh-usa.org/fda-new-claim-body-is-a-drug/ : ...[The] FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states! We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-C™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells. The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic for two reasons: 1) Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!) 2)The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by the FDA. A similar principle applies across industries—whether it's medical treatments or consumer products like Miami Blinds , interstate movement and consumer behavior can directly impact regulatory oversight and market dynamics.” [note: full articles linked here link to source documents]

Was trying to help an undergrad with his assignment with another friend. This friend started advising the undergrad to use [ChatGPT](https://chat.openai.com) to do his assignments while the undergrad was complaining that it wasn’t very helpful for his programming module. I felt uneasy but the way the conversation went, this seems like a common thing. So, I am not sure. I wondered what is the correct Buddhist view on this. Is it breaking any precepts like lying (this is cheating, right?). Will it lead to long lasting harm and suffering from a karmic point of view? What would be the Buddha’s advice?

So I was reading some stories from the Bhikku who created https://americanmonk.org/ Specifically about his ordination(s) and he mentioned how he travelled from A to B to C country after X, Y or Z circumstances happened, but mentioning it in a rather nonchalant way like any general tourist. Like he had an abundant of wealth to spend freely to travel whimsically. So it makes me think and want to inquire how do modern monks manage to travel so freely when all they own (supposed to own) is a bowl and 1 or 3 robes. A monk is supposed to give up all possessions before ordination. So what about their passport. Sure finances they could give to a trusted loved one but isn't that cheating. Like a kind of "hold my material possessions until after I ordain then give me them back" cheating...lying essentially! especially with a passport where legally nobody but the passport holder or governmental body are able to legally "own" the passport. Sure I understand that a monk can have a personal benefactor like a loved one who supports them financially, though in the story I vaguely explained above the Bhikku was dealing with having visa issues after being ordained in a different country, which implies he still owns a passport, then travelling so freely, implying finances etc are there. Even logically how can a Bhikkhu even buy a plane ticket or "own" a plane ticket (without the help of a lay person doing it for them) I am not trying to be pedantic, I am genuinely curious how this stuff works. Especially when looking at the strictness and limitations of requirements of a person just to ordain in the first place, for then the strictness to be relaxed instantly and do a 180 as a Bhikkhu can then use a passport that he owned before ordination, or money, or even a pair of seeing eye glasses (medicine requisite but still a possession one would have and I assume need to give up before ordination) Which adds another question, on a more practical level. If one took ordination say in sri lanka (any country) then the visa expires (visa is a possession too) Bhikkhu has no money, is to be deported, no financial benefactors....how does that even function from a modern world perspective. Any ordianed or past ordianed members experience would be greatly appreciated. I obviously understand that benefactors from the laity, not even the Bhikkus family/friends etc can and do support the Bhikku. I assume this is also how and why teacher monks are able to go back and forth multiple times a year to different monasteries and countries teaching the dhamma, after being requested.

Being vague for the sake of not speaking divisive or malicious speech. I know of a monk who had sex with nun(s) and was disrobed/expelled (later reordained too) From my perspective, a lay person, would it be wise to not learn the dharma from a person like this who has created such a root downfall (I don't know the correct term, but broken vows that cause one to be expelled) I don't mean be harmful to the person either (of course) I just mean should I as a lay practitioner not listen to this person in regards to dharma?

Recently, there had been a lot of market turmoil in the world as a result of one man’s action in imposing unilateral tariffs. The justification was that free trade is not as good as fair trade. I suppose if you think about it there is some truth in that free competition tends to benefit those who are more competitive or had some kind of *fair or unfair* advantages. I know the Buddha encourage the practice of dana or giving to those who are needy and worthy. But in any competition, there are bound to be losers. Giving to losers appeared unnatural and even in the wild, weaker animals perish. I am not saying this system of free competition is perfect but I can’t think of any better solution either. How does Buddhism strike a balance view in all of these? ---------- ***Appendix A*** In [SN4:20](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN4_20.html) , the Buddha was mentioned to have thought about this issue of just and righteous rule of societies. One that does not cause sorrow to the ruler or the people. Sadly, it appeared that there was no mention of any solution.

I read this: > In Zen, it's generally understood that "When you meet the Buddha, kill > him" refers to "killing" a Buddha you perceive as separate from > yourself because such a Buddha is an illusion." Should we kill illusions of Buddha? I do wonder, in the time of Buddha, some people wanted to kill him — perhaps this too is a reason I ask, although that may have been for many reasons.

I have read somewhere (possibly Dalai Lama) that certain sexual activity comes under sexual misconduct (like Oral, Anal ...). So my question is whether using breast for sexual activity is considered sexual misconduct.

In [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51562/was-the-buddha-neutral-on-self-centredness-or-selfishness#comment84938_51575) it was pointed out as per [AN 4:95](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_95.html) that one who practises solely for one’s benefits is better than one who practises solely for others’ benefits. While the best of the 4 types of individuals is those who practise for theirs and others’ benefits. It seems strange that a selfless and altruistic intention is seen as lower and less refined than a selfish one by the Buddha. This [answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28527/if-you-cannot-can-save-others-then-why-is-your-practice-more-worthy-than-anythin/28658#28658) proposed possible reasons why type 3 (solely for oneself) is better than type 2 (solely for others). In short, by practising for oneself, the individual indirectly confer protection to others as well as to oneself. But won’t the same effect be achieved with type 2? Is this right or is there something else? By logical extension from the above, if one is practising for oneself and others there should be additional benefits as this type is the best of all according to the Buddha. Are there additional advantages and what are they? The last question is somewhat related to [an earlier post](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51562/was-the-buddha-neutral-on-self-centredness-or-selfishness) . If intentions are not to be judged on the basis of selfishness versus selflessness, what is the proper Buddhist criteria for deciding if an intention is noble/refine versus ignoble/base? Any insight is much appreciated.

I'm very fortunate to live in an affluent part of the world. Even so, it is a common site to see people begging for money in the street. In our town there are posters up asking people not to give to beggers as it just encourages people to beg more. However habitually walking past people begging does not feel like the compassionate thing to do. Is it possible to bring Buddhist ethics and philosophy to bear on this? Should one give to beggers in this circumstance? It would be good if answers could include textual references to illustrate the point however all answers gratefully received.

Slavoj Zizek is a little unusual I think among English-speaking philisophers, in expressing substantial sympathy for Buddhist ideas, but challenging them at a basic level. Eg The Problems of Buddhism (https://youtu.be/UN1hP_lBtp0) The Buddhist Ethic & The Spirit of Global Capitalism (https://youtu.be/qkTUQYxEUjs) Zizek criticising Buddhism (https://youtu.be/IlCkLqz20W8) Zizek vs Buddhism (https://www.youtube.com/live/9zqm7ZCP9t0) To summarise, he focuses on Zen At War, and especially Suzuki, using an understanding of Sunyata to better be able to go to war. A key phrase he uses is Kurosawa's interpretation of Shakespeare: (only) "The bad sleep well". That is, inner peace at the expense of acting morally, can lead to a situation like in Japan where only a handful of Zen figures opposed imperialist violence, an unsettled mind is sometimes appropriate over non-stop inner peace come-what-may. He also criticises mindfulness practices used in workplaces to allow workers to tolerate intolerable conditions. How should we answer this? Have people already in the Buddhist world responded? I feel like the answer relates to emptiness not being no selves at all, but rather intersubjectivity: to do violence to others is to do violence to our other self. Is that a mainstream response in Buddhism, and especially in Zen?

I have heard a certain interpretation of the 5th precept and I'm curious about it, the person said that for lay people the 5th precept means "not drinking alcohol to the point you get intoxicated or lose control of your actions", therefore it would be ok to drink a glass of wine having dinner for instance. On the other hand, once you start drinking it becomes very hard to know your limits, most of the people don't have this ability. Is there a limit or something regarding drinking alcohol according to Buddhism?

I live with my mother in her house. There have been a mouse for a few months, living in the ceiling of my bedroom, and since a few weeks, it has been a nuisance for it scratches something, day and night, to the point of preventing me to sleep, even when wearing ear plugs. The mouse does not seem to understand that it is not alone in the house and that it causes distress. I remember that There were mice long before and the rat poison was successful, until another mouse set in. They always find their way in, and always end up breeding and making a noisy mess. I cannot access the ''thermal material'' which is between the ceiling of my bedroom and the attic, because the attic has been covered up by some thermal blanket to better protect the house thermally. I do not wish to kill the mouse with some rat poison per se. but I also fear that the mouse could chew some wires, electrical and telephonic, which pass above the ceiling and causing damage to the house. I also fear that the mouse breeds leading to even more mice, especially if I end up killing them. There are cats in the neighbourhood, and it is not clear to whom they belong, but they clearly did not catch the mouse thus far. I cannot get a cat myself, since there is no place and no means to sustain having a cat. I do not know the path to the garden that the mouse takes to leave the house, because there are plants and small trees preventing me to watch the ground and weed. Is there another solution than killing it in disposing some rat poison, in order to stop the noises and be assured that the house will not be damaged ?

I formerly practiced with the local Shambhala group. I took my Refuge Vows there, received some random Buddhist name that had nothing to do with my studies or who I am; and was told I was now a member of Chogyam Trungpa's lineage. Since then I found out about the disgusting sexual and physical abuse perpetrated by Chogyam Trungpa and his son, the current Sakyong, and have not been able to continue with the Shambhala teachings. My question (and I apologize for its being so very basic) is: can a refugee somehow change lineages? I asked this of an older woman there whom I respected,and she said no without any explanation. I now am studying the teachings of H.H. the Dalai Lama, and do not really know what tradition I am in. I have practiced on my own -- with the exception of my few Shambhala years -- for about 20 years, but am not very knowledgeable about the scriptures. Any link to a good beginner's guide would be much appreciated. I hope I have not violated any rules. And thanks in advance for any answers. I really don't want to be associated with Shambhala in any way. If there is a way to change my lineage, I'd really like to know.

I was part of a religious group that claimed to be everything that the Buddha teaches. But, when you listen to their teachings, you can tell discrepancies between their teachings and Buddhist teachings. I just saw many people being misguided, but I do not know what to do. (Just to clarify, the religious group I'm referring to is neither Mahayana nor Theravada. But, the question can be generalized further if necessary.) On one end, I do not wish to create any conflict among anyone. On the other end, I feel sad that many people are misguided into the teaching. So, the question is: What should I do? Any answers based on experience would be AWESOME, and experience + Scripture references (said by famous teachers or based on Pali Canon) would be an Awesome+++infinity. :) Once again, I hope to find a method that does not create animosity. Thanks Buddhist Community! Praises to the Dharma. ******As for an explanation on how this question is different from the forum titled "How to address wrong view", it's pretty much the same, except this is more scenario-based. I just wanted a different perspective/insight to this specific scenario. My ultimate goal is to avoid conflict!!!

Humans are sure they're the peak of evolution, even though we evolved as top predators and still en mass treat the planet as if we're top predators even if we're not directly officially involved in the destruction. Out thoughts are are our main blockages to enlightenment and being connected with something higher. So why are we so sure we're higher than the smart vegetarian animals like whale and elephants? Is it possible whales are floating around the ocean, not caught up in all the negative mindset we suffer, and actually already connected to higher planes of consciousness?

Is there any convincing interpretation of [Vessantara Jātaka](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j6/j6013.htm) that isn't in conflict with morality? Vessantara gave away his children to serve as slaves for no particular reason; it is not clear how not giving them away would hinder his own awakening. I can see how one might argue from the Buddhist perspective that attachment to one's children and anger towards their oppressors is a bad thing. One can, however, protect one's children from oppressors in a completely detached way, without generating any attachment or hatred. Moreover, it's not that he just didn't resist; instead he actively looked for his children when they had run away, in order to give them away to Jūjaka. All in all, Vessantara's behaviour caused a lot of suffering to his children for no reason whatsoever, and he not only didn't get condemned, but was even presented as the one who did the right thing. Is there any way to reconcile this story with morality?