I am practicing Vipassana meditation and I want to know is it possible to practice samadhi/anapana and pragya/Vipassana without following Sila.

Today I see a great Vajrayana khenpo monk (also a vajra master) sharing an interesting opinion in this video : > (Translation) > > One of the 5 Silas of monks forbids stealing... However, you will not break the Sila if you steal from a bodhisattva. > > Why? Because a bodhisattva has no obsession (on material posessions), > he has given them up. So, if you take something from a bodhisattva... > you steal something from a bodhisattva, it is not breaking the Sila. If you steal from a normal person, because he will be obsessive on his possesions, so it is breaking the Sila. > > What the Sila forbids is robbing or stealing something from another person who cares about them...what about an enlightened bodhisattva? His thing is practically owned by no one (because of his Dāna). Remember this. > > This is how the bodhisattva's Dāna is different with normal person's Dāna... The Khenpo mainly wants to tell us bodhisattva's Dāna donates everything, and a normal person's Dāna does not, by this example. But this really sounds strange. In modern legistration system, a crime of theft or robbery is determined by the convict's will and action, and not by whether the victim cares about his/her property. The Khenpo says otherwise, since a bodhisattva does not care about his/her property, then it is not owned and can be taken away freely. Does the Sila here work more like the police than laws, that if the victim does not call the "police" (Sila? Karma?), then the convict will not be arrested? My question is, 1. Is it really legal (in perspective of Sila) to steal from a Bodhisattva? Is there any books or written creeds confirming this? Or the Khenpo just makes simile and not really means it is legal? 2. Is it also legal (in perspective of Sila) to steal of other enlightened people, like, an Araham? 3. Is it also legal to steal from a monk who claim him/herself as bodhisattva, or vow to follow a bodhisattva's standard?

I read the following in the internet: > Right View and Right Aspiration, would be part of Sila, as Dr Rod > Bucknell 1984 and I have confirmed by comparative studies of > teachings. At least the Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa also appears to include the mind in its CHAPTER I Description of Virtue (Sila): > 25. (v) Now, here is the answer to the question, HOW MANY KINDS OF VIRTUE ARE THERE? > > .17. As virtue of Pátimokkha restraint, **of restraint of sense faculties**, of purification of livelihood, and that concerning requisites > > (a) The virtue described by the Blessed One thus: “Here a bhikkhu dwells restrained with the Pátimokkha restraint, possessed of the [proper] conduct and resort, and seeing fear in the slightest fault, he trains himself by undertaking the precepts of training, (Vibh 244)” is virtue of Pátimokkha restraint. (b) That described thus: “On seeing a visible object with the eye, he apprehends neither the signs nor the particulars through which, if he left the eye faculty unguarded, evil and unprofitable states of covetousness and grief might invade him; he enters upon the way of its restraint, he guards the eye faculty, undertakes the restraint of the eye faculty. On hearing a sound with the ear … On smelling an odour with the nose … On tasting a flavour with the tongue … On touching a tangible object with the body … On cognizing a mental object with the mind, he apprehends neither the signs nor the particulars through which, if he left the mind faculty unguarded, **evil and unprofitable states of covetousness and grief might invade him**; he enters upon the way of its restraint, he guards the mind faculty, undertakes the restraint of the mind faculty ([M I 180](https://suttacentral.net/mn27/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=main¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin#15.1)) , is virtue of restraint of the sense faculties. > > [Page 18](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf) However, when examining [M I 180 (MN 27)](https://suttacentral.net/mn27/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=main¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin#15.1) cited by Buddhaghosa, the impression is Buddhaghosa misread the text. In a sentence, [MN 27](https://suttacentral.net/mn27/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=main¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin#15.1) appears to summarize sila together with sense-restraint, although does not appear to say these practices are the same thing (i.e., types of sila), as follows: > They refrain from... mutilation, murder, abduction, banditry, plunder, > and violence. They’re content (santuṭṭho) with robes to look after the > body and almsfood to look after the belly. Wherever they go, they set > out taking only these things. When they have this entire spectrum of > noble **ethics** (ariyena **sīla**kkhandhena), they experience a blameless > happiness inside themselves. > > When they see a sight with their eyes, they don’t get caught up in the > features and details.... They act with situational awareness when > going out and coming back... > > When they have this entire spectrum of noble ethics (sīla), this noble > contentment (santuṭṭhiyā), this noble sense restraint > (indriyasaṁvarena) and this noble mindfulness and situational > awareness (satisampajaññena), they frequent a secluded lodging—a > wilderness, the root of a tree, a hill, a ravine, a mountain cave, a > charnel ground, a forest, the open air, a heap of straw. > > [MN 27](https://suttacentral.net/mn27/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=main¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin#15.1) Is thought included in 'sila' (ethics) anywhere in the Pali Suttas? Note: this question is explicitly about 'sila' and not about 'kamma'.

> "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.

Upasaka Karl [mentioned in an answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/41486/19697) : >Relationships have a beginning. And because they have a beginning, they also have an end. Thoughtless endings, ghosting and worse, hurt both parties. It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience. We become each other's dismissable clickbait. Yet perhaps a thoughtless ending was matched by a thoughtless beginning. Perhaps we can consider and nurture relationships that matter. 1. Isn't it merely the case that personal relationships never really end, that some of the debts remain forever? That one actually stays bonded forever, even after ending of a relationship... 2. What are the valid reasons for ending a personal relationship? 3. How to end a relationship properly? 4. Which (as it were) "relationship" can't be ended, once gotten into? 5. What's the effect of denying being in a personal relationship and consuming outside of it, thinking "I am free" or "this is my right"? *[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades and relation-misuse but to escape toward]*

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.

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]*

What is it? Is sex just for pleasure with your partner breaking a precept? Eg with a condom. And is being circumcised bad over personal preferences/ (hygiene,aesthetic)? is oral and anal sex bad? Is masturbation bad? And is circumcising your sons bad?

Indriyasaṁvara is part of [sīlakkhandha](https://suttacentral.net/define/s%C4%ABlakkhandha) . there you see this > Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā **na-nimittaggāhī** hoti > nānubyañjanaggāhī. whereas **animitta cetosamādhi** is part of highest samadhi. Thats why it is after th 8th Jhana. > sabbanimittānañca amanasikāro, animittāya ca dhātuyā manasikāro. so with this background, and for the sake of proper practice, Can someone help in knowing what is the difference between **not grasping** nimitta (na nimittaggāhī) and **signless**(animitaa) ?

I am a Buddhist from Thailand. I have a question about pali meaning. In ceremony, we swore to follow the five rules of pancasila. Monk told us what pancasila consist of. Then monk said in pali; Imani panca sikha patani. Silana sukating yanti Silana poka sumpata Silana nipputing yanti Tusama silang wiso ta ye I'm not quit sure whether I translate the above to English word correctly. Do you have this chants in your country? What are these chants called? Any reference to this chant? How to spell it in English and what is the meaning of it. I already searched in Thai language but I want to expand to English as well. It's quit hard to write Pali in English. Here is the meaning I found in Thai. As you follow these five rules, you will have good place to go(next life). You will become wealthy. And you may go to nirvana. I want to compare its meaning from many source especially "ni-pu-ting" in last sentence that referred to nirvana. I don't quit agree that it is the same thing.

When I search for the word "debt" on this site -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=debt -- many of the posts are from the same author -- including two recent ones: - https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/48450/254 > seek out for people teaching the Dhamma not training consuming fools and suggestions that they could escape the debts - https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/48452/254 The answer to the latter question puzzled me -- because I'm not sure what the difference is between a state welfare recipient thinking "I have a right", compared with an employed wage-earner's having the same kind of thought. --- What is Buddhist doctrine on that subject? The only reference that come immediately to my mind is the debt towards parents, which is so immense that it cannot be repaid, and which is acknowledged by the fact that monks are allowed to help care for their own parents in person. There are few references on [Access to Insight](https://accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?q=debt) : - [Ina Sutta: Debt (AN 6.45)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.045.than.html) sounds like it might be a parable or analogy -- i.e. that a monk who behaves badly suffers consequences like a layman who goes into debt - [The Lessons of Gratitude](https://accesstoinsight.org/ati/lib/authors/thanissaro/lessonsofgratitude.html) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu seems to say to repay your benefactors by becoming a better person - [Anana Sutta: Debtless (AN 4.62)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.062.than.html) says that "debtless" is one of the states that a house-holder can enjoy -- along with "having" and "using" wealth, and being "blameless" -- the debtless isn't the import bit in this sutta, which says it's next to nothing compared with being blameless - [Vasala Sutta: Discourse on Outcasts (Sn 1.7)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.07.piya.html) says that denying a debt is one of many examples of misbehaviour that would cause someone to be considered an outcaste Can you summarise Buddhist doctrine about debt? Should you try to be more conscious of debts? If not what should you try to be more conscious of? Part of this question is exemplified by this from Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay: > In other words, as the first passage shows, it's perfectly fine to appreciate the benefits you've received from rafts and other conveniences without feeling any need to repay them. You take care of them simply because that enables you to benefit from them more. The same holds true for difficult people and situations that have forced you to develop strength of character. You can appreciate that you've learned persistence from dealing with crabgrass in your lawn, or equanimity from dealing with unreasonable neighbors, without owing the crabgrass or neighbors any debt of gratitude. After all, they didn't kindly go out of their way to help you. And if you were to take them as models, you'd learn all the wrong lessons about kindness: that simply following your natural impulses — or, even worse, behaving unreasonably — is the way to be kind. > > Debts of gratitude apply only to parents, teachers, and other benefactors who have acted with your wellbeing in mind. They've gone out of their way to help you, and have taught you valuable lessons about kindness and empathy in the process. As a corollary, if the "raft" there might be an analogy of the Dhamma, what do you think of that? If people publish the Dhamma, after which find and use it, you may appreciate that -- is it something to feel "indebted" about, and if you don't feel properly indebted then are you like stealing it from its rightful owner (e.g. the Sangha), and/or is the person who published it some kind of thief?

I am curious about the idea of calling *sila* (all precepts and vows) as ethics. When did this translation appeared? Or who interpreted *sila* as ethics or something similar to ethics? This is not to say that it is incorrect or comprehensive, but ethics as a western category of thought has been used as an auxiliary concept to understand sila. Which scholar/s did this?

First of all "Sadhu!" and much reason that reaches to good grow, but as just a [meta-topic](https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2661/should-we-use-honorifics-when-referring-to-monks) what's actually the primary base, good to give occassion to raise not only awareness for good grow but also possibility to give proper answers, citing the Venerables here (although, of course, some will use it to increase their demerits as well). "We" in the question refers to receiver of Dhamma-guṇa (highest goodness), to householder, to people aware of higher and lower, not to speak of those gone for refuge toward the Gems. Maybe good to add a sub-question: Who is the one who really gains something upwardly when giving proper regard, and who's the one who loses if failing? (e.g. the Kamma of reference)

It's very common in South East Asia today that business people try to socialize with potential customers by appearing or pretending as Dhamma-teacher or Dhamma-friend. Most meetings around the Gems are mainly for such a purpose and is very usual. How does the Sublime Buddha and knowledgeable Elders regard such ways? What fruits are to be expected from such actions?

Is the modern idea of unconditional access to knowledge, teachings, supported by the Noble Ones, or maybe even seen as cause of decay and not benefical for many as well as the tradition? What are then the conditions that one gains to be taught certain levels? How are those teaching without care of possible required conditions regarded by the teacher and elders?

Say a soldier can be hired for maybe $100 a day: What would be a suitable price to offer that one would live in accordance with the Dhamma, keeping precepts based on metta for all beings, a day?

or uncertain, subject of change, a burden and not own- or control-able, not worthy to fall for? Time to answer and give it up?

The word "blameless" is often used in suttas: https://www.google.com/search?q=blameless%20site%3Aaccesstoinsight.org [AN 4.62](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.062.than.html) suggests it's highly good: > Seeing clearly — the wise one — > he knows both sides: > that these are not worth one sixteenth-sixteenth > of the bliss of blamelessness. - Is there doctrine about it, or do people just already know and agree on what it means? - Is it given as an ideal for monks and for lay-people? - What is its opposite -- i.e. "blame" -- who does the blaming? - Is it to do with self-reproach? Or with blaming other people, ...? - Is it identical to "absence of remorse", which [AN 11.1](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html) explains is the purpose of skillful virtue? - What about "irresponsible" -- behaving badly, not accepting blame, even blaming others instead? - Does someone know correctly whether and when their life is blameless, or might they be self-deluded? - What about the Lokavipatti Sutta [AN 8.6](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html) -- does that say that "desirable things" (e.g. "blamelessness" in this context) shouldn't charm the mind, and its opposite shouldn't be resisted? Is blame and blamelessness just another of the worldly winds?

I read the following on the internet: > It all started by harming the Noble ones. How can Noble Ones be harmed? Does the Buddha's Noble Path lead to increased susceptibility to being harmed?

My person thought it's possible good to count and remember the reaction of Dhammikas when "fellows" get in conflict. Not taking side, what are the useful supports in regard of conflicts in other single relations? While common fools, group-identifying, increase conflicts, how does a wise give helpful support for all? How do faithful householder, faithfull Brahmans, wise recluse, pull out nourishment of heat?