Couple of questions: 1. According to the Dhamma, is it allowed to critisize someone in a constructive manner? 2. If someone gossips about me how do I deal with it? Compassion and kindness aside, sometimes it is necessary to be assertive. One can only be compassionate if one is healthy inside in that moment in time. 3. Intention is a little bit more important than the act itself, (isnt it- at least in Buddhism) (only in a few instances is the act more important than the intention for example stealing is wrong even if one's family is poor), however, if for example I slice my bread in the supermarket and I see remaining pieces of bread in the machine and I take them with me because no one did I then so no reason why I would largely violete the "not taking what is not given". Sure, it wasn't given but if my attention or thought is: "Well, if I don't take it it will be wasted" then that should rather influence my kamma, right? So it's largely about my intention. If I hurt someone out of compassion because he attacks someone and injures them severely I have better results because my intention was to safe others, correct?

This was a question here: > Do all good and/or all pleasant intentions have pleasant outcomes for one/or another? It may be good to investigate in frames of the Buddha-Dhamma. And could that be always traced by anyone, the line of cause and effect?

Right intention is a good thing: can I intend to be an Arhat or Buddha? What if I believe I cannot be either, can I still intend it, have the intention to any of its unique qualities and skills etc.?

This is a question of practical interest. My personal practice is generally to feel guilty for bad deeds, but today I tried *admitting* fault and guilt without *feeling* guilty, and it was much less stressful. I do not know which is correct. Is there any textual evidence on whether the Buddha suggested feeling remorse or not? ---------- **Sutta 42.8** from the Samyutta Nikaya , *Sankha Sutta*, discusses remorse, but the following two translations seem to contradict each other, in which one mentions remorse is not useful, whereas the other mentions that remorse is part of reflecting on having done something not good. Is one of these translations more historically accurate than the other? ---------- The [Access To Insight](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.008.than.html) translation reads: > 'The Blessed One > in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and > says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have > killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was > not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed > of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right > then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life. ---------- The [Sutta Central](https://suttacentral.net/sn42.8/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=sidenotes&highlight=false&script=latin) translation reads: > But consider when a Realized One arises in the world… In many ways he > criticizes and denounces killing living creatures… And there’s a > disciple who is devoted to that teacher. Then they reflect: ‘In many > ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces killing living creatures, > saying: “Stop killing living creatures!” But I have killed living > creatures to a certain extent. That’s not right, it’s not good, and I > feel remorseful because of it. But I can’t undo what I have done.’ > Reflecting like this, they give up killing living creatures, and in the > future they don’t kill living creatures. ---------- (I’ve been trying to translate the Pali but I've only gotten so far as that one should "renounce" the evil deed.)

I am trying have a routine and life style that help me learn and practice dharma. I came across videos on YouTube where a monk from Thailand talked about evening routines, daily reminders etc. which are practiced at the monastery. > 10 daily reminders: https://youtu.be/RoZA9mWoukA > A Day in the Life of a Buddhist Monk: https://youtu.be/PlsaqLddfws I wanted to know are there any particular set of daily reminders and daily reflections I can use. Have anyone used something like these in their practice?

Say one has gravely fallen into slavehood by consuming 'free' and, almost unaware, is driven to steal and pull the Gems and it's heritage, into this evil bound. Almost unaware and deluded, he even thinks he does a good by following a Robin Hood like lane, trying to gain surface by pulling Sublime into his sink. What does good householder think: Which fruit, by acts grave wrong view (taking ungiven, cheating, hiding up, disregard...), following demand and 'my right' (given by Lord Mara, industy and his host), has he and those he encourage likewise, to expects, how ever 'naively good' he might justify his ways, even it directly warned? Liberation or long time even lower slave of Mara and his host? Sure, answer honest and in line with the teacher, after having reflected wise, might change ones ways, and one might not only seek for excuse old but change the way toward out. Yet those answers might be rare and less voted up, naturally, bound like-a-like.

I've seen Master Lu live, i noticed this but not all agreed and their services are everywhere in the town So, i visited few temples and many of their members to understand more about this and the culture. Some feedbacks as below from the Temple lead and senior members (including high wisdom and high compassion Doctor). They knew exactly what are they doing (can and cannot). 1. There are many critical illness been cured including Doctor himself 2. There are too many free thinkers here and difficult to access or understand Buddhism. This concept can be easily accepted and easily spread Buddhism. To get a good and genuine Monastery/Temple in town is really difficult Limited of Buddhism Sharing . 3. Doc asked me, If you are diagnosed with critical illness then do you still have time to practice Four Noble Truths ? Q) Can this teaching accepted as something "like" prescribed pain killer/drugs in Medical practices. One must told what Buddhism allowed and disallowed then should practice the right path upon almost recovery? One should not addicted with this prescribed drugs ?

Whenever I'm confronted with behaviours I find potentially harmful, I get angry. One example of this is when I witness motorists speeding or otherwise making risky maneuvers (going after the light has turned red, cutting in traffic, etc.) I may be enjoying a nice calm walk in my neighbourhood and be otherwise feeling quite serene, but then a single passing car happens to accelerate too much (sometimes noisily), and then I start feeling all sorts of feelings of disapproval, powerlessness and contempt. I feel like I should change my attitude, but I'm not quite sure what I should strive for. Clearly, getting worked up over passing cars accomplishes little. It even hurts me, since I lose focus on what better thoughts I was enjoying before. Afterwards, I'm in an unhappy, vindictive mood for a while. People I love that see me having these types of reactions often look concerned and a bit disturbed. Pretty clearly, getting angry is not the right reaction. On the other hand, even on a rational level, I'm not sure I want to *not* get angry, because it seems obvious to me that these drivers are taking unnecessary risks that will invariably lead to more kids getting hit by cars, more car crashes, more noise, environments that feel less safe - harmful things. If I *don't* react, am I not placing myself and others in harm's way by taking part in an enabling apathy? Please note - reckless driving here is just an example. I'm hoping to find some insight on how to deal with things that are more or less tolerated by many, either by apathy, ignorance or differences in personal values, but that are for some reason important to me. Other examples that come to mind : - Marketing - Political propaganda - Erosion of private life - The environment - Social justice. How do Buddhists see disagreements where the opposing party might harm others if they continue in their ways? A *"Live and let live"* attitude seems problematic, since it contributes to the problem.

I have heard this list discussed in Dharma talks like this one: Gil Fronsdal: The Four Resolves (Recorded: Monday, June 12, 2017) But when I tried to find suttas on this subject, I could only find 1 in which the existence of the "4 resolves" was mentioned. DN 33: Saṅgāti Sutta

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

Yesterday, I was eating some vegetable sausages and I noticed that there was just a set of teeth rhythmically opening and closing like a lonely metronome with no meaningful sensory instrumentals. It reminded me of one those animations in a Pink Floyd video where unidentified mechanical machinery rocks back and forth which then took me on various excursions through the woeful realms. Afterwards, the thought occurred to me although with some slight linguistic embellishments here: "isn't it marvelous, isn't it astounding, isn't it stupendous that, amongst the processed and compressed remnants of soy beans shaped into a sausage, one can be brought to the very edges of the cosmos and back again but not actually traverse one single cubic meter of space." Even going down to the shops in the car to purchase various types of cruciferous vegetables, movement is sometimes stillness. In the Diamond Sutra, which I very carefully studied for four years, (I don't mean 'study' in the conventional or academic sense) the Buddha eludes to this by saying, "Subhuti, if any person were to say that the Buddha is now coming or going, or sitting up or lying down, they would not have understood the principle I have been teaching. Why? Because while the expression ‘Buddha’ means ‘he who has thus come, thus gone,’ the true Buddha is never coming from anywhere or going anywhere. The name ‘Buddha’ is merely an expression, a figure of speech.” At this juncture and with the notion and fallacy of time and space falling away, intention and striving seem somewhat superfluous. Striving perhaps takes a new manifestation; one that shimmers ever so slightly rather than presenting as various forms of vigour. In fact, in the Buddhist sense, striving seems counter-intuitive to its original dictionary definition and certainly debunks the overly enhanced ideas derived from the noise that motivates a materialistic-ridden society. The strange thing about the latter is that there is something ever so right about mundane human striving even in the face of its ensuing sufferings; that this rightness is the product of its own realising tendancies but through various infantile spasms - not infantile in the pejorative sense, but an infancy that is embodied by innocence and love. This is too subtle for me to embrace just now but I see it teetering on the very edges of my awareness prancing alongside some odd luminosity and unmitigated terror. In the above context what is the meaning of striving to awaken? Does the initial intention behind striving suggest a network of flimsy ideas indoctrinated by ones chosen context as a form of pacifying the mind from worldly distractions and that these spirituality fabricated artefacts must be later seen to be a hindrance? Currently, my intention seems to be informed by the way my mind has been previously exposed to the practice which is to say: raw personal experience, but I question the flickering baubles we call spirituality, Buddhism, Theravada, Zen, Mahayana. Is this suitable? NOTE: I understand it might sound like I'm all over the place but please be assured that this is not the case. I would rather not have a flurry of misdirected aims in this manner. The theme here is striving and intention and how they might be perceived - in the fullest range of perception - by different people and their traditions. Thanks.

In the Diamond Sutra (or Vajra Prajna Paramita Sutra) Buddha says to Subhuti: > *a Bodhisattva should not dwell anywhere when he gives. He should not dwell in forms when he gives, nor should he dwell in sounds, smells, > tastes, tangible objects, or dharmas when he gives. Subhuti, **a > Bodhisattva should give thus**: he should not dwell in marks.* Below the passage Venerable Master Hsuan Hua (pp.91-94 in the link ) explains that this comes down to giving without being aware of or paying attention to: - the one who gives, - the one who receives, and - that which is given I have read this explanation many times, have attempted to meditate on the matter, and have tried to practice such "giving thusly" actively by being kind, helpful, donating to charities when prompted and to beggars when asked on the street. **However**, I cannot help but feel that the manner in which I give is ultimately still contrived and pre-meditated - not free of "*conditioned deliberation*". Specifically silly thoughts such as: - "Do I have any change on me to give to this person in the street? - I'll make sure to have change on me at all times in the future." seem very contrived and not in line with the idea that one must simply "give". Mindfully, perhaps, but not based on logic, not purposefully, or, for that matter, ostentatiously. **Question** **Does anyone have any advice in how to practice giving thusly?** (practice in the sense of "get better at") References to relevant literature would be most helpful. We practice Tibetan Buddhism in our family, but as can be seen from the text above, I try not to be a stickler for school-purity.

My person thought of motivating, encouraging each other in supporting the foundation for meditation, complete Sila incl. right livelihood, if bound to house-life, viewing on the aspects of, planting food **without soil & harm**. Maybe some of you here like to share each other not only motivation like: **Why could this be a good livelihood?** **How could this be a good livelihood?** but also tips in how to do practical and simple without much material need and high tech. **How to do it for your own in least harmful way?** If wishing to share it foremost dedicated to the Sangha and it's devoted Noble followers, to have a change of higher merits, one can use the dedicated place [here](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,9634.msg21210.html#msg21210) as well. *(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for a way out of that wheel)*

I can see how generosity and gratitude are important as means to foster right resolve. But what if someone do good things sometimes due a sense of obligation, but also cause much harm to you? For example, this mother . Given that our resources and gains are limited, it is not much better to support the virtuous one rather than the unvirtuous? And in the case of supporting the unvirtuous and unwise, how this would not contradict others teachings like "do not associate with fools" and "give a gift in a proper time" ? (a unwise person would surely use a material gift unwisely causing harm for himself/herself and others).

Following an answer I received previously, I wonder a question I deem somewhat important: **If a person preaches ideas or advice related to the dharma, but fails to live by those values, is this person lying?** If not, is there still a consequence in terms of the person's mind, perhaps integrity?

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 .

In reference to [this](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/extremist-views-are-banned-on-this-forum/13312) : Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived, assumed "bad"? Is it possible to not be an intolerant "racist" if fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived racism? Their usual advertisement: In short, when you are being intolerant to intolerance, aren't you being intolerant yourself? Is this a wrong view according to Dhamma? or the usual approach of them: Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate? If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma? Occupying not only Dhamma and destructing peace... what does not make the simply a "folks army"? Lack of weapons? And if having, don't they banner and execute? ---- That so far on the question fighting aversion with aversion. Now how is it when fighting non-aversion with aversion? (of which the case linked is about) Simply killing not desired any base to justify in Dhamma? *(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)*

What if one thought it wiser to tell a lie, because the truth could potentially endanger one's own life? For instance, someone might lie that they believe in a supreme being, in reply to a question being asked by their parents who have strong faith. This is a very sensitive topic in some cultures or countries, to the point that parents might kick their son or daughter out of the house. This is an example where the intention is to maintain personal security. Does this violate the precept of not-lying? Or, instead of being a lie, might this be considered like the "noble silence" that Buddha once exhibited when the listener was incapable of understanding the Dhamma?

When a text (e.g. Abhidhamma) lists 'wholesome' mental factors, is it meant that these are also likely to produce positive karmic consequences, or that these are just beneficial in general? For example, in the Theravada tradition I read that *sati*, i.e. mindfulness, is a beautiful mental factor. In a discussion with the Dalai Lama, Matthieu Ricard explains how even a sniper may use mindfulness. So I am confused as to whether 'wholesome' and 'karmically positive' are synonymous or not. --- As well, from this answer I understand that karma refers specifically to the ethical intention. So, when their compassionate action which lacks wisdom produces detrimental effects, is a well-intended, compassionate person still nevertheless generating positive karma? This possibility seems to imply that developing a compassionate intention almost negates completely the possibility of unvirtuous karma. Thank you

When doing physical work, there are times that anger helps to overcome physical obstacles, as a way to arouse energy where force is required, but for the purpose of doing good (thru service, altruism), not harm. But anger is a form of aversion, a defilement, unhwholesome root. Did the Buddha say any words on whether the use of anger, or force, is ever acceptable?