The right view of the Noble Ones is described here as:

"There is no mother and father, without the self."

Buddha describes wrong view here:

“And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is wrong view. MN 117

Is it possible to turn this wrong view into the right view of the Noble Ones by adding "without the self?"

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view of the Noble Ones? ‘There is nothing given without the self, nothing offered without the self, nothing sacrificed without the self; no fruit or result of good and bad actions without the self; no this world without the self, no other world without the self; no mother, no father without the self; no beings who are reborn spontaneously without the self; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world without the self.’ This is right view of the Noble Ones."

Is this an accurate description of the right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path?

In how far does one take part on skilfull or unskilfull undertaking? In how far does one receives the fruits of good or bad actions by means of getting involved by toughts, signs and deeds, by assosiation with tendencies and certain objectives and aims? Are there even disadvantages, benefits, for one if just seeming for others to be near of certain undertakings? And how should common-kamma here be understood? *(Note that question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)*

Believing that 'there is mother and father' is listed as right view affected by the taints.

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions. MN 117

1. To what extent does right view *not affected by the taints* deny that there is a mother and father?
2. What logic or analysis does right view *not affected by the taints* employ to deny this?
3. Are mother and father to be denied altogether?
4. Is there no such thing as mother and father for one who is awakened?

I feel like going on retreat has in a way allowed me to see outside "the matrix" and now I cant unsee it. This makes normal life dealing with completely unawakened people quite insufferable sometimes. Yes sure everyone suffers so on one level I empathise but most the time I just don't want to be around people at all. It feels quite lonely. Also I have lost interest in most things I used to be interested in because I don't see the point of them anymore. Is this disenchantment normal as far as Buddhism goes or is it wrong view?

What does one know or think: Is there any praise of shred-parami (perfections in appearing modest) by the Sublime Buddha, such as in out-fit, outwardly appearing, using of such stuff, and if why? If not why? To give an idea in a samples of certain "modesty": * Better to catch fishes with the hand instead of catching with high tech, yet still after meat. * Better to wear recycling garments then new, yet still after look. * Better to drive an old car then a new one, yet still after comfort. * Better not to cut hair and let it grow, yet still after appearing certain. * Spreading "I am content with an old camry" to sign out modesty and swifting to rave as soon conditions make it possible. *[note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks but for gaining release from the wheel of hypocrisy and corruption]*

I am beginner in journey of way to truth, and life in general, through Buddhism. It's not long since I discovered Buddhism, and it really gives me insight in life. My question is that I'm having really hard time, and I'm in confusion about what to do, in that my family is tearing apart because my mother is cheating on father with another married man, and I don't know what to do about it.

Sleep paralysis is a condition which occurs up to as many as 4 out of every 10 people according to some statistics. Sleep paralysis happens when one is about to fall asleep or while waking up during the transitional states between wakefulness and sleep. In the course of sleep paralysis one will experience temporary paralysis that makes it unable to move or speak. The paralysis may last usually only few minutes. In addition the individual might also perceive terrifying hallucinations that are made worse with the inability to move or speak.

During meditation in past, it was observed that if focus is maintained on nostrils, tip of nose and center of forehead(between eyebrows) then it causes cold and cough within 2-3 days of such practice. Surprisingly, it was observed whenever it was practised. Tried the same experiment with other fellows at that time, they also had same symptoms, if not sooner then later. In tipitaka, anywhere mentioned about ill-effects of such combination of meditation focus points? Are these ill effects or could be something else, not taken into consideration? Analysis so far- Kayanupashyana and vednanupashyana both are all about focus, observe, analyse body parts (though not always at single area but bit by bit within whole body). There might be somewhere mentioned about such ill effects, if not then either those suttas were burned off or this assumption is wrong or assumption is correct & it might be due to wrong concentration & observation, "upward air entering as cold & sensing nose part nearby forehead leading to formation of runny nose, cold, cough"

I know very little about the teachings of Buddhism. So I apologize for the simple questions. My question is why do some people become rich and others poor? Who gives a person wealth? Is there an action of the deity in acquiring wealth?

Is worry about life, body health, e.g. householding, status-maintaining, obstacles for Arahataphala? Is this in accordance with what the Teacher taught? And why is such an obstacle? Would one believing no former, no next life (deny rebirth), not hold either strong on kaya (Sakkaya), worry about life and health, or falls into ideas of "abounding life will be Nibbana, end of suffering"?

Carpe Diem or Memento Mori? Which of these two approaches did the Buddha recommend for your benefit?

What is the Sublime Buddhas approach in regard of judging a certain community and it's governing? What makes a community conducting badly? Which kind of community can only fail (in regard of good deeds, benefical in long terms) by democratic means? Which kind of community allows democratic ways? Which kind of community requires authority? ...

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.

There's a question regarding the Dhamma that I really wish to rectify and clear up with you and that's regarding the suicide cases of Channa, Vakkali and Godhika - When I first came across these cases, I was really disappointed and discouraged to practice the Dhamma because I saw Dhamma as the way to prevent people from committing such acts in the first place, but if by practicing the path of Dhamma and reaching Arahant stage and this is a possible blameless result, I became very disillusioned and anxious over the path, moreover hearing the cases of Bhikkhu Samahita and Bikkhu Nanavira also fuelled this, creating a fear that this may be a possible outcome of developing the path. My mental clarity and wellbeing plummeted since hearing these cases, since it raised a lot of doubts and confusions, esp because Dhamma used to be something that gave me hope and is foundational to me, but now there's a lingering sense of hopelessness if this is a possible result of the practice. When I ignore this topic I feel good again, but when it resurfaces again to my mind I feel quite hopeless and anxious again, I know there's so many people who have heard of these cases and who most certainly haven't responded to these cases adversely and in a negative way, so my question is, in light of such cases what is the best way that one should view/understand such cases so that one's own practice and wellbeing isn't affected and that one can continue to practice the path with security, hope, joy, contentment and composure, and walk the path correctly without falling into wrong-views? The ways I have tried to understand and view such cases is that they were cases of euthanasia and since they are highly debated as to whether those 3 monks were arahants before or after they committed suicide, I have realised it is better to instead focus on the 10 Great Disciples of the Buddha who embodied the Dhamma to a greater extent such as Arahant's Mahakassapa, Sariputta, Moggalana, Subhuti, Rahula etc, and hence are the best role-models for one walking the path, Sariputta in fact says "The Teacher has been served by me; the Awakened One’s bidding, done; 70 the heavy load, laid down; the guide to becoming, uprooted. And the goal for which I went forth from home life into homelessness I’ve reached: the end of all fetters. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time as a worker his wage. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time, mindful, alert." This quote is what has personally given me hope that those cases of Suicide are from non-Arahant monks - and thus I have learned to place my faith again by discarding these controversies, and listening to the Dhamma of every monk who have talked on this manner, who have all labelled it is as an akusal (unskilful deed) that must be removed from the mind. I feel like I've answered my own question in many respects, but I still would love to hear another Dhamma practitioner's perspective on this, so that I can reach a more holistic and objective understanding on how to move forward and best navigate myself through these knots & controversies in the Dhamma and not fall into wrong-views. Thank-you so much for taking the time to read this post, I really sincerely appreciate it.

When command the mind to does something it was done what had commanded. If thought about more happy today next moment less happy. After sitting meditation feel empty. Is it mindfulness?where is the meditation,according to visuddhimagga?

After right concentration, how does right view change? Do you become completely convinced by right view, or was that already the case? Is right view in some other sense more pervasive? Or is it just as it was, and all that's changed is you have a deeper insight (and if so in what way?)? I've tagged this Theravada, but only because its path is easier to break down into right view etc., so welcome an answer from any tradition.

What are the common/widespread wrong meanings that people associate with or assign to the word 'gratitude'? As we know, the society is made up largely of families, and those in turn are made of up relationships, which most commonly are underlied by sexuality, in turn often being related to guilt, as well as guilt based manipulations and control mechanisms. At the same time, we are inclined and even obliged to feel grateful towards our loved ones. So it is safe to assume that the obligation to be grateful and patterns of guilt (or other) based manipulations co-occur, and therefore can and probably tend to interact. And therefore it is also safe to assume that at least some part of the human species if suffering from views and actions rooted in a wrong understanding of gratitude. Now, gratitude being such an important pillar of Enlightened teaching, what are some common roots and symptoms of false Gratitude which we should mindfully observe and then root out?

Is it possible for a person to gain liberation while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Is it possible for a person to understand profound universal truths while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Are skillful means in accordance with profound universal truths? Are profound universal truths in accordance with skillful means? An example of a skillful means is acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth in cyclic existence. An example of a profound universal truth is that the Buddha was not to be regarded as a real and genuine fact as was taught to Anurādha. An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma. An example of a profound universal falsify is to understand the Buddha as a real and genuine fact. Another example of a profound universal falsity is to believe like Yamaka that, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.” Various traditions divide the above conventions into a dichotomy. The labels that are used and the understanding of that dichotomy is different from tradition to tradition. In Theravada, I have seen the dichotomy variously described as right views of two types including, without vs with effluents, definitive vs interpretable, supramundane vs mundane, and in commentarial literature ultimate vs conventional. In Mahayana, the dichotomy is labeled in similar ways but also absolute/ultimate/universal vs conventional/relative/dependent.

The Four Noble Truths include the Noble Eightfold Path which importantly includes “right view” as the first step on that path. However, it is said in Snp 4.5 that a Realized One does not hold any “views” nor declare any view foremost: > “Whoever should take to himself certain views, thinking them best, > supreme in the world, and hence he proclaims all others as low— by > this he does not become free from disputes.“ Is the “right view” as described in the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is described in Snp 4.5? If so, does this mean that a Realized One abandons the right view of the Noble Eightfold path?? If not, then what is a “view” as described in Snp 4.5 and how is it different from the “right view” of the Noble Eightfold path? It has been pointed out (quite astutely!) that the "right view" of the Noble Eightfold path can be divided into two. (MN 117) There is the right view with effluents and the right view without. Are either one of these, both, or neither the same type of "views" as described in Snp 4.5? Also, the Buddha often described things with the adjective “foremost”; does this mean those things so described were not “views” as meant in Snp 4.5?

Is thinking that there are no good people / followers of five precepts in this world a wrong view? I read this in some where but I forgotten it. It is hard to see that kind of people other than Buddhist monks. This is a reason for some people to not to follow buddhism. Some times I feel the same way. Is this a wrong view? Do you meet real Buddhists in real life other than monks? I always try to remember that the metaphor of lotus pond. Kind regards.