I’m the only Buddhist in my family and there are very few Buddhists in my community. To make matters worse, the closest Buddhist temple to me is a New Kadampa Tradition meditation center. Because of this, I’m starting to wonder if I’d be better off leaving my family behind because I think I’d have more exposure to the dharma with other people. Answers from any school of Buddhism are welcome. Edit: The reason why I asked this question is that I thought I’d be held back from understanding the dharma if I was a Westerner with no other Buddhists in my life. In addition, I suspect my parents of being narcissists and that they’re using me as their golden child. I joined Buddhism at the age of nine because I lost interest in Christianity and saw Buddhism as much less dogmatic and more reasonable. However, now that I left NKT, I don’t have a master to rely on nor am I part of a sect, although other forms of Mahayana peak my interest with their focus on the collective whole.

Ever since I was a kid I have pirated and bought illegal copies of many different kind of media such as music, movies, video games and softwares. Now as an adult do I have to pay for all these things legally? The problem is I have a family to take care of and if I had to repay all of these I might end up being in debt. The prices for these items will probably be different now anyway. Besides it will take a lot of time to remember all of the things I pirated.

MN 137 discusses the six sense fields. How can we understand lay equanimity with respect to the six sense fields? For sights, lay equanimity arises for an uneducated ordinary layperson but such equanimity does not transcend the sight, and that's why it's called lay equanimity - says the sutta. What does that mean? What is an example of lay equanimity? > And in this context what are the six kinds of lay equanimity? When > seeing a sight with the eye, equanimity arises for the uneducated > ordinary person—a foolish ordinary person who has not overcome their > limitations and the results of deeds, and is blind to the drawbacks. > Such equanimity does not transcend the sight. That’s why it’s called > lay equanimity. When hearing a sound with the ear … When smelling an > odor with the nose … When tasting a flavor with the tongue … When > feeling a touch with the body … When knowing a thought with the mind, > equanimity arises for the uneducated ordinary person—a foolish > ordinary person who has not overcome their limitations and the results > of deeds, and is blind to the drawbacks. Such equanimity does not > transcend the thought. That’s why it’s called lay equanimity. These > are the six kinds of lay equanimity. > MN 137

I'm trying to clarify something I believe I heard a while back. I think I heard the monk instruct the lay person to say "Bhikku Sanghassa Demi" which I believe was later translated as "I give this to the community of monks" Is this correct?

The following sutta quote suggests that under the stated conditions, an Arahant should forcibly remain an unwanted burden or guest to a specific individual caretaker, even if sent away (or dismissed - according to Ven. Suddhaso's translation). Is this really the case? If that specific individual caretaker is unable to care for that Arahant any more due to personal circumstances e.g. due to financial reasons or family reasons or health reasons, what should he do? > Take another case of a mendicant who lives supported by an individual. > As they do so, their mindfulness becomes established, their mind > becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements come to an end, and > they arrive at the supreme sanctuary. And the necessities of life that > a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and > supplies for the sick—are easy to come by. That mendicant should > reflect: ‘While living supported by this person, my mindfulness > becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come > by.’ That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their > life. **They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away**.” > MN 17 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

I have a question about my current practice, but feel it's far too sensitive to share here. I do not personally know any person, teacher or guru who I could ask this question. What could I do in this instance?

What has historical precedent to teach and what is your opinion?

What advice did the Buddha give to laypeople or monastics about taking care of a dying loved one or anyone dying in their deathbed?

I broke up with my girlfriend a couple of years ago. We haven't talked to each other since then. A few months back we met at a job interview. We spoke to each other and she was very friendly. I thought she is no longer mad at me. Few days ago I came to know that we both got the job. I texted her to congratulate. She has seen it but hasn't replied. Now I can't stop checking my messages on the phone to see if she has replied. I know this is fixation but just don't know how to deal with it. What could be a way out of this?

Receiving alms is definitely part of the monastic life. Is begging for alms acceptable for lay persons? Is begging for alms considered Right Livelihood for lay persons? Is begging for alms considered skillful for lay persons, compared to earning their livelihood in accordance with the five precepts, principles of Right Livelihood and teachings of the Pali Canon (or other scriptures)? Or is it considered laziness?

For some reason I'm a magnet to bad people or people who are chronic complainers or attention seekers. They often come to me when they need to talk or vent. Especially at work. I don't really want to talk to them but I'm too friendly and not good at setting boundaries and I often just listen to them offering advice. It stresses me, especially when they are angry and they come to me to talk about it. How can I deal with this in a skillful manner? I tried practicing Metta towards them which didn't work due to their negativity being too strong.

The more I meditate the more weird I become. I feel stressed out while being with groups of people. I don't know what to say and I find the conversational topics deeply boring, meaningless and useless. As a consequence of this I tend to isolate myself, communicate via social media and meditate many hours daily in my apartment. I don't really like to be around people when I meditate intensely. I feel this life is more and more useless and sometimes I want to become a monastic and live in a jungle or forest. I can't do that right now because of paying off my student loan. If I didn't have that loan I would have gone forth by now. It seems like I can't find a balance between the life of a meditator and as a lay person. Meditation pulls me inwards and makes me not want to be around people but the lay person in me still wants lay life type of things. I'm deeply ambivalent and conflicted about this. I feel like I'm being pulled in opposite directions and it feels like the meditation practice is ruining my life. Is it possible to find a balance and still live in this world as a meditator or do I have to give up either the meditation practice or the lay life?

What are some "skillful means" of getting through holidays, birthdays, graduations and etc. when your in-laws are constantly making passive aggressive statements about you or the way you raise your kids. Are there Buddhist techniques one can use to aleviate the anxiety and the irritability associated with these situations?

A bit of background. In my mid-20s, I spent a lot of time (cumulative 1 year) in different monasteries in Thailand, Myanmar and Nepal. I understand experientially the importance of consistent and regular practice. I am now 33, have a decent tech job. I am very conflicted between a lay married life and celibate life of serious practice. Anybody have the same dilemma? How did you solve it?

I jog everyday and teach children how to play basketball. There are some insects on the path where I jog and on the basketball court, and I’m sure we unintentionally kill a few of them. We live in a place where there are lots of trees and forests so it would be difficult to get rid of bugs. Am I violating the first precep?

Are there Sanghas(in the more broad meaning of the word) of those who practice like monks but aren't officially monks and have not been ordained as monks by monks? If they could call themselves "Bunks" or something besides "monks", would this be problematic? Are there any scriptures related to this?

I have often heard that in many places in the *sutta*s where the Buddha says *Bhikkave*, (monks!), he really means to include the four *parisā* (assemblies), which includes lay male and lay female devotees. Therefore, it is said, that teaching applies to all. Where did this idea get legitimacy? Is there any mention in the canon itself? I can readily see why one would **wish** it were so (why would one ignore all the wisdom because it's not spoken directly to oneself) but that doesn't mean it **is** so. I'm also interested if this explanation is offered in Mahāyāna where the meaning of saṅgha itself is broader, as I understand. Also within Insight/Theravāda circles, is there a difference between the West and traditionally Buddhist countries like Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand in the reading of this word. Any historical insight into whether the West was influenced by the early arrival of Mahāyāna to its shores, for example. **Edit:** I am aware that it makes sense to view the teachings as applying to everybody. Please note that the question is more specific - **is there canonical support (in any canon) for this interpretation? Or some other historical information other than using our own logic.**

I am only a Lay practitioner of Buddhism. However, I recently read a view point of someone who had been at a Buddhist school for 8 years. And it was slightly worrying. He said a young person at th is school had had trouble learning and taking on information. She had asked some of the buddhist monks why she struggled. Now, as an educator his thought process was "The teaching type for you is wrong. Let's review how you learn, and try a different approach". However, the monks advised her she must of been an evil person who burned or destroyed books in a past life; in this life therefore, she was through karma destined to struggle so she could learn and develop for her past mistakes. Obviously, this was very stressful for the young person. I understand that the monks are far more informed in buddhism than I. And that obviously there may be more to the story. I also appreciate that they where seeking to offer a spiritual answer to her questions. But surely as a Buddhist one can look beyond a previous life? As none of us are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt what we done in a previous life. Instead of speculation, could we not instead say "what is done is done. Instead, this is how we combat this new situation"? In the given example, it would of saved the young person pain - she felt her - for lack of a better word 'soul' - was scarred and mared then and it would affect her ability to develop irretrievably. Surely better to have said "You may be struggling from some past transgression. But that's not you now. Instead, let's look at how we can help you now and bring you on"? Any input advice or guidance would be very greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Do the scriptures somewhere mention that it's appropriate to go forth when having a wife & children? According to the scriptures Gotama, the Buddha-to-be, left his palace & his parents to reach enlightenment, but leaving one's parents is quite different than leaving one's wife and his child. Reference to scriptures is highly appreciated!

When exactly is it worth considering to ordain as a monk? Is it something that happens automatically during the path, that is, (a) special experience(s) or insight into the three characteristics? Is strong uncomfort experienced when living the monastic life? Thanks