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 tried to find the answer and looked into theses questions on the site https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5979/the-third-precept-and-prostitution https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9307/buddhist-attitude-towards-prostitution-and-non-procreative-sexual-activity https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1367/how-is-sexual-misconduct-explained-in-regards-to-the-five-precepts But I couldn't find the exact answer. So hope this is not a duplicate. The explanation I have heard regarding the third precept is for men to avoid having sex with certain types (20 types) of women. So my understanding is that a married man going to a prostitute doesn't break the third precept. Please explain if this is correct or not.

>In the SN 35.88 Punna Sutta, the Buddha asks Punna what he would do if the rough Sunaparanta people attack him and he says he will think "These Sunaparanta people are very civilized, in that they don't take my life with a sharp knife" and the Buddha said that was good. Is the Buddha not condoning lying here? Is this an example of some kind of mind conditioning lie? Is it a certain distinct practice in the Buddha's teaching? >The Buddha asks what would you think if they took your life with a sharp knife and Punna says "If they take my life with a sharp knife, I will think, 'There are disciples of the Blessed One who — horrified, humiliated, and disgusted by the body and by life — have sought for an assassin, but here I have met my assassin without searching for him.' It's ok with the Buddha for monks to seek assassins? That wouldn't be breaking the first precept if you consider the assassin as a weapon used for suicide? What is the Pali word for "sought"?

All five precepts are relatively clearly defined except maybe the third precept. There are different types of women that are prohibited, prostitute is not one of the requirement to break the third precept. If, for example, someone likes to visit prostitute, that person does not break the third precept. Do five precepts protect us from falling to lower realms? What is the purpose of practicing five precepts? What protects you from taking rebirth in the realms lower than human? Thanks.

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?

>It goes without saying that alcohol makes you mindless. Theres debate about pot creating conditions for enhanced mindfulness in SOME individuals. My question is not "is it okay". I know what to expect. Are there any specific stories involving Buddha on the subject of someone ingesting an herb or something, specifically to be mindful... and how that is bad. I'm asking for the story or stories.

> "Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, > Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward." > AN 11.1 > It is natural that non-regret arises in a virtuous > person, one whose behavior is virtuous. > AN 10.2 What is the basis for defining skillful virtues, that would result in freedom from remorse? The Abrahamic religions depend on God to define what is right and wrong. The Buddhist suttas define skillful virtues based on "freedom from remorse". The precepts like killing, stealing, adultery and lying result in remorse. **Why do they result in remorse?** I've seen vague explanations based on laws of karma or kamma niyama (Dhp 127), natural laws or principles ("this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles") based on AN 3.136 or SN 12.20, the Golden Rule ("don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you") based on Ud 5.1, and linking to the three poisons. However, I have not seen suttas that definitively provide a cause for remorse. Please support with sutta references, as far as possible.

I am recently observing the effects of "asceticism" or in my case, simply reducing food/taste related pleasures. I know the Middle Way in Buddhism advocates avoiding the both the extremes of asceticism and indulgence in sense pleasures. However, I find that in contemporary Western society, there is a significant lean towards sense pleasures and material comforts. Given the prevalence of indulgence in things like food, luxury, entertainment, and other sensual pleasures, I’m curious about the role of asceticism for lay practitioners today. 1. How should lay practitioners approach ascetic practices in the context of modern Western society? 2. Is there a recommended balance between asceticism and engaging with the comforts of modern life? 3. What specific ascetic practices can be beneficial for lay practitioners to help reduce attachment to sensual pleasures and support their spiritual growth? Any answers/opinions are appreciated. Thanks!

I have a girlfriend who has a daughter from another man. If I raise this kid not vegetarian, will that be bad karma? Her mother is an omnivore and the kid is being raised in an omnivore household. It would be very difficult to change her diet. Is it my reponsibility to make her vegetarian?

I'm a computer science student striving to uphold the principles of Buddhism, particularly the precept of "not taking which is not given." In my journey to learn coding, there are moments when I struggle to write code independently, leading me to seek help from platforms like Stack Overflow or Google. However, I often find myself copying and pasting code from these sources to solve my problems. While this helps me progress in my learning, I'm concerned about whether this practice aligns with ethical standards, especially considering the precept mentioned earlier. My question is: Does using code from online sources in this manner constitute a violation of ethical principles, particularly the concept of "not taking which is not given"? I understand the importance of integrity in academic and professional settings, but I'm also eager to learn and progress in my coding skills. How can I navigate this ethical dilemma while ensuring that I uphold virtuous principles in my coding practices? Any insights or guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

As to Buddhism killing is wrong and planning such things is also wrong. So what is the difference between the Karma of a person who killed someone and a person who only planned but never killed.

Is making a true promise, on the dharma, good karma? Not asking about the precepts per se, but it was about precept centred behaviour (a lack of infidelity etc. from me): and now I feel blissed out, independent of how it was perceived etc.. Just curious.

Killing of stray animals like dogs and cats violates the first precept. However, is spaying or neutering of stray animals for population control acceptable from Buddhism's perspective? Does it violate any precept or teaching?

I was reflecting on a craving I had for something addictive tonight while going to bed, and realized, "My notion of having 'just a little bit' of this addiction is just my relying on common sense... but common sense is no more common than horseradish is full of horses. Just because most people think, 'just a little' is always OK doesn't necessarily mean it's truly a sober, beneficial, or wise thing to do." In any case, this reminded me of the [Kalama Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html) , and I wondered what my version of relying falsely on common sense would be: 15. "Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them. My guess is that common sense is a tempting thing to automatically defer to because it can combine every one of the unhelpful methods of inquiry into one. So then if people rely solely on common sense they basically just do whatever they want. Yet, it can sometimes also be the correct way of inquiry listed at the end of the Sutta. Am I correct?

Most if not all of us had used alias, pseudonym or avatar at one time or another while interacting with others on the Internet. There may be good reasons for doing so such as the desire to protect our privacy, fear of intimidation or to criticize people in power without fear of retaliation. Of course, there could be less than noble reasons as well. Is the use of alias, pseudonym or avatar i.e. impersonation considered breaking the 4th Buddhist precept of lying? If using an alias, pseudonym or avatar is alright then why stop at one? What is wrong with using more than one impersonating identity? If a person created multiple accounts in a forum (like the one I am writing in) and there is no explicit rule forbidding it, is it alright? Appreciate if answers would cover the subject from a Buddhist perspective.

Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but many Theravada teachers warn against practicing restraint in the commonly understood sense of the word. For example, if I understand correctly, Yuttadhammo Bhikku says to not stop and quit a behavior but to try our best to remain mindful. I understand to some extent that the reasoning has to do with non-self, and trying to stop a behaviour may involve deluding oneself with more of this self. However, in the texts it is frequently mentioned to practice restraint for bad habits (for eg. 9:11) . So I am a little confused here...both approaches make sense to me in their own right. Which one is the right way? or what are the conditions under which these are applicable? Hope this makes sense. Thanks

I had this dream in an afternoon 3-hr long nap today where I was so drunk that I could not keep track of the present. I remember, at one moment I was conscious that I feel drunk and then the next moment I knew of, much time had already passed from that previous moment of awareness. This all was in the dream itself. There were also accompanying signs like heart palpitations which are actually true for me in real life too. The surprising thing is that I did not drink in real life at all in the past few weeks, and neither did I drink within the dream. I was just curious if there is any insight in Buddhism on this - does it hint at any blockages, or hindrances that I may have in "real life"? Thanks for any insights.

I've been to a nice restaurant (pictured below) where the bar was decorated with statues of the Buddha. Given the 5th precept and all; this seemed a bit odd. Would it be correct to surmise that the 5th precept is understood in different ways among Buddhists?

I understand that vaping nicotine is not a particularly healthy habit and is addictive. However, I’ve used it to quit smoking cigarettes and it has resulted in me abandoning them entirely, which I consider to be a huge milestone. I also have a significant mental illness that I am very effectively managing with the help of medication and therapy. But I have read studies which suggest that nicotine can offer some psychological benefits for people with psychotic conditions like mine (I can offer a source for anyone interested), and I have found this to be true in my case. Does vaping nicotine break the fifth precept?

According to this answer, it seems like masturbation is not considered sexual misconduct or breaking the third precept. However, the whole point (in general) of keeping the precept is to make good kamma both in mind and body. Masturbation alters the mind state and creates bad mind-made kamma. So ideally, shouldn't it also be considered as sexual misconduct and breaking the third precept?