Suppose I suggest that someone else eats meat or steals someone's property: is the karma the same as performing the act? What if I allow them to do so, explicitly or implicitly? Is the karma defined by e.g. what I want the other person to do or what I expect and plan them to do?

I have read that obedience to the five precepts at least guarantees that practitioners will not fall back into the lower worlds (animal world, wandering spirit world, and hell world) when they are reborn after the present life. So I was wondering if the conversion to Buddhism, the taking of refuge and the beginning to follow the five precepts, "cleansed" the old bad deeds, a bit like baptism among Christians? Does a person who has violated the five precepts, for example by killing or stealing at the beginning of his life, and then halfway through his life until his death starts following the five precepts, still go to hell? Is he definitely condemned to be reborn in hell for his offense?

What does Buddhism say about waiting vs acting? For some context, I quit my corporate job a year ago because it felt so much against my skin to be working for aggressive profit. Since then I have pursued things I have wanted to do - passions (things that I dreamed of doing), volunteering (helping others) and I have continued my meditation practice. I am quite content with my relationships, the state of my mind, my body and my meditation practise. But for some reason, I haven't yet found a job that I feel drawn towards and I am going through my savings fast now which causes me concerns. I don't want to be acting on the fear of going broke, I also don't want to go back to my old job. I am often faced with the conflict of waitings vs acting. How does Buddhism prescribe navigating through such a conundrum?

I'm currently reading In the Buddha's Words by Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi. In the introduction to **The Way to a Fortunate Rebirth** he states that the roots of what make an action unwholesome (akusala) are: > "greed, hated and delusion" Well that confirms a hypothesis I got from reading Dawkin's The Selfish Gene that *'there are no truly altruistic actions'*. People often give to the needy to feel better, to get good karma, to get into heaven. Whatever the case may be they are giving for "greedy" reasons. They're own gratification in some form or another. There is no such thing as kusala. Unless you have a complete lack of self awareness and/or do it purely on instinct. Therefore I ask: **Is this not a paradox?** Is it even possible under the Dhamma to commit a wholesome act (kusala) like giving, without it being rooted in "greed"? Therefore making all positive actions such as donating to charity, giving to homeless, giving gifts, anything positive is actually unwholesome (akusala)?! In summary: **It's impossible to gain good karma without it being routed in your greed for good karma** I'd appreciate your ideas, discussion and/or answers?

Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God? If yes, how? Do all beings intuitively know what is right and what is wrong deep within their consciousness? Even the worst psychopaths? Resources: - https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Is_morality_objective%3F - https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Do any scriptures discuss the importance of intention? Why is intention rather than action important?

### Question Hi all, i would like to ask if anyone knows the difference in meaning between these three pali words: * Kamma * Kammanto * Kammanta ### What i've found so far I can see from looking at the pali words for "right action" that this is called "samma kammanto" (sometimes "samma kammanta"), so i'm guessing that these two are the same? I'm also guessing that Kamma is a more general term which includes speech and thought/intention as well as physical action? ### Context I'm building a to-do-list and life-organizing application and since i have a Buddhist background i'd like to give the application a name inspired by Buddhism

If someone was holding many hostages and I came along and offered to trade myself for the hostages place so they can be let free, would this be right to do or wrong to do and would be detrimental to my practice if I am killed?

According to the Buddha's teaching in the Buddhist scriptures, when is it appropriate: >To assist in creating the structures of a group or society? >To embrace the established structures of a group or society? >To defend others by enforcing the established authority of a group or society? >To push away or overthrow the established structures of a group or society? >To defend others by pushing away or overthrowing the established authority of a group or society?

I know that lying is unskillful in general but in the case where saying the truth could hurt someone and its necessary to lie in order to heal that person **but you cannot fake the lying in front of him/her since it would be obvious you are lying** rendering the method ineffective.So in accord with right action and intention how can this be resolved? I read this question Does any/every form of lying violate the precept of “not-lying”? which justifies white lies. However **Iam concerned with saying it genuinely**,if you are going to say a series of lies one after another and you don't believe they actually happened it can be hard not only to genuinly say them but to have a conversation about facts .

This question can seem contradictory but form my understanding ,duality is inherent in reality and accepting reality in all its dualities leads to more conscious actions. But if the person as a result acquires ONLY positive qualities then isn't this dual and not in accord with nature? Buddhism lays emphasis that qualities like ,jealosy ,hate,pride and anger are unskillful and qualities like love,peace,contenmtent and compassion are. Don't we kill animals and plants to eat ,don't we fight in wars in self defense, these are negative but right actions to take and underlie negative qualities of brutality . Can we cry consciously can we kill consciously ?

Last year ,I lent a friend alot of money ,he convinced me that he lost his wallet and needed money for certain payment,promising that he will return it after 3 month,he payed some of it then delayed it to the next year and now he tells me to forget about it till he can return it. Now there is a feeling of regret not only because of the money which ,I Lent in expectation of getting it back but also because the friendship got affected . Feeling that he is a liar made me think , I should've been mindful of the deception.As well as not having any compassion for him. What should be done right now according to Buddhism?.

In modern society most politicians and banks are corrupt and only care to gain more money & power. They do not care about the welfare of the citizens. What would the dhammic response be? Activism and Dhamma should be incorporated or not or partially?

From my understanding of awakening (and also according to answers here like Is it possible to become UNenlightened? ), it is an irreversible process. It makes sense in theory as, once one awakens, realises the way out of all the dukkha, it's such a wonderful state. Why would one replace it with anything else? It is told that Great Zen Master Seung Sahn has reached awakening in 1949 . However, later on in life, Master Sahn has had sexual relationships with students , which he publicly admitted and did two repentance ceremonies. Even though it seems that the affairs had not been hurtful to the students, the first thing which comes to my mind is: in order to engage in sexual relationship, one must have some lust - some unsatisfactoriness or dukkha - which contradicts the state of nibbana. Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? Some of possible explanations that I can think of: 1. Is it possible that engaging in sexual relationships was what the situation requested, that it was right-action? After all, precepts are guidelines and, if situation requires so, they are ought to be broken. If so, why did Mater Sahn do repentance ceremonies? Was it also right-action? 2. Perhaps different buddhist traditions lead to different state of nibbana. I am relatively new to buddhism and all the traditions so I don't quite understand if this is even possible? (though I doubt it) 3. It is possible to become "un-awaken" after all?

To what extent does Buddhism state we have free will and moral responsibility for our actions? Does Karma mean our future is predestined?

Assuming one has to operate in the temporal sphere, but seeks to diminish the karmic implications of action, what are the characteristics of karmaless actions? Is this distinct from right action?

One important thing that Hindus and Buddhists agree on is the law of Karma. That is, there are certain actions which will lead a person to have a positive experience in future, either in this life or the next, and there are other actions which will lead a person to have a negative experience in future. And Hindus and Buddhists also agree that ultimately the goal of life is not to just do good Karmas so you can have positive experiences in future, but rather to break out of he whole cycle of Karmas and their consequences. Buddhists believe that this can be done through the Eightfold Path, and Hindus believe in other means like knowledge of the supreme being. But my question is about what determines good Karmas and bad Karmas. Hindus believe that the Vedas (and texts derived from them) tell us exactly what actions constitute good Karma and what actions constitute bad Karma. But Buddhists reject the Vedas, so my question is, how do Buddhists determine what actions are good Karmas and what actions are bad Karmas? Do Buddhist scriptures discuss how to determine this? Note that I don't think the answer is "The Eightfold Path", because that's about what's required to break the cycle of Karma and consequence, whereas my question is about what's required to get positive experiences through the law of Karma. Also, on a side note, do Buddhists simply classify Karmas into good or bad, or do they subdivide these categories further? Because Hindus believe in a more fine-grained system where different kinds of good Karmas produce different kinds of positive experience.

Would the imposition of Asimov's three laws of robotics make a robot act in a Buddhist manner? > * A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. >* A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. >* A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. In this case I think we can associate "human" with "higher power or morality" - be that suttas, kamma, laws, or whatever.

How can I purify my mind so that I can gain confidence and believe that I can study and practice efficiently? The major hindrance for that, what I believe, is that my subconscious mind is strongly saying that I am incapable.

You know, and increase risk of others getting the illness and such?