According to the Buddha's teaching, is it more wholesome to feed a domesticated cat meat or let a cat catch it's own food? Is it wholesome to feed a cat at all or possess a cat? How should one who lives by the Buddha's teaching approach cats?

I was wondering if for example an obsession or craving that someone has for attaining Nirvana would be considered something unwholesome. On one hand it seems to me like it would, since that person would be reinforcing the habit of craving, but on the other hand how else could they actually achieve the goal? Like for example how could they decide to become a monk and devote themselves fully to the practice etc. I don't think the Buddha would have left his palace if he wasn't motivated by *some* sort of craving, at least in the beginning.

When does a Buddhist begin to and fully master skilful means? I am asking because I think that this world contains a dilemma for everyone who takes it seriously (rather than their karma): a choice between virtue and power or skilful means. I think that's what I enjoyed about the lotus sutra, when I read it, how it elegantly illustrates the Buddha's ability for skilful means.

Mappō (a.k.a mòfǎ, mạt pháp) is a term used by the majority of Mahayana Buddhism branches in East and Southeast Asia. It was mentioned in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvaṇa Sutra, signalling the declination of Buddhism and corruption of society as a whole. The sutra painted a grim picture of Buddhism's future, where monks violate the precepts and preach a perverted version of the Buddha's teaching. Most of the times where this concept is mentioned, it is to achieve political purposes, e.g to gain legitimacy by demonising other people or sects. This has happened since more than a thousand years ago, in ancient China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and is still going on. Personally, I found the concept and its details unhelpful since it gives practitioners (especially beginners) the feeling that the world is falling apart. I'd like know why such description is necessary for Buddhists to know, and what is the optimal way to address it?

According to upaya, the doctrine of 'skillful means', as it appears in the Lotus Sutra, was the Buddha *lying* when he said that there are three vehicles? Presumably he knew there was only one: so why wasn't his deception evil? I am referring to the claim in e.g. the parable of there being three chariots, when there is in fact only one. Or Shariputra's claim that he thought he was "deceived" when believing he could not be a Buddha. I believe it's generally characterized as "deception" according to the scholastic tradition that is based on the lotus sutra.

Inspired by this answer... Is the specific formulation of Dependent Origination in the early buddhist texts an upaya and/or skillful means? If so, how approximate is it? Are there other conceptual elaborations that improve upon it? If it is an upaya, what is the purpose or motivation of teaching it originally thousands of years ago? Is it different today? Has our modern conception of physics and psychology led to the development of other upayas that may or may not share some of the motivation or benefits of the original? There are parts of the early buddhist texts that include teachings on the Four Primary Elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind. Was this an upaya? Has modern physics provided an update to this upaya that has the same benefits as a better conceptual elaboration of the underlying truth? If not, in what way is the original better? If you think the teaching on Four Primary Elements was an upaya or skillful means, but one that has been succeeded by a better modern version in physics and chemistry... do you think Dependent Origination is also something that could or should be updated... or one that even has been already been updated/replaced? To be clear I am not indicating that skillful means involve intended deception. Thanks!

Please help with these questions! :) > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is angry? > > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is deluded? > > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is greedy? > > And what is the most skillful way to handle the Poisons within me as > well? Metta to all!

Is 'impermanence' skillful means? Wikipedia's [definition of "Skillful means"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya) says: > The implication [of skillful means] is that even if a technique, view, etc., is not ultimately "true" in the highest sense, it may still be an expedient practice to perform or view to hold; i.e., it may bring the practitioner closer to the true realization in a similar way. And of [Impermanance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence) : > The doctrine asserts that all of conditioned existence, without > exception, is "transient, evanescent, inconstant". All temporal > things, whether material or mental, are compounded objects in a > continuous change of condition, subject to decline and destruction. I think that, for some Mahayana schools, everything is skillful means. So is the doctrine of impermanence "skillful means" too? I am looking for an answer which: - Says yes or no (and explains why) - References a sastra or sutra (if there is one) which claims or implies this answer - Preferably, also, explains what (if any) bearing that may have to understanding any other doctrine: such as anatta; voidness; or the buddha-nature.

Namo Buddhaya! Here are my questions regarding justice systems & their morals: > Would it be skillful & moral to report someone to a principle, a police > officer, or any sort of authority when someone is being hurtful to > others (such as killing, bullying, etc.), knowing that reporting them will most likely cause them suffering > e.g. expulsion from school, jail time, etc? > > And also is justice skillful, moral and is incarceration moral, > skillful in terms of the Dhamma? Metta!

Namo Buddhaya! My neighbor is a hardcore Christian & is a very nice man, the only thing is that he goes outside every once & a while with a water gun & kills insects (and even shoots rabbits with the gun). He also really pushes his religion on others and expects people to be Christians, otherwise, they will suffer eternally in Hell. This makes me concerned about the amount of bad Kamma he may be accumulating from his actions, thoughts, & speech. I had 3 questions: - Is it skillful to not intervene in his acts of killing, knowing he will not understand? - What is an appropriate response to him asking if I "love Jesus only" or if I'm a "good Chrisitan"? - Should I not worry about un-deluding his mind to help him understand the Dhamma? Metta to all!

According to the article An Explanation of Upaya in Buddhism by Barbara O'Brien: > Mahayana Buddhists often use the word upaya, which is translated > "skillful means" or "expedient means." Very simply, upaya is any > activity that helps others realize enlightenment. Sometimes upaya is > spelled upaya-kausalya, which is "skill in means." > > Upaya can be unconventional; something not normally associated with > Buddhist doctrine or practice. The most important points are that the > action is applied with wisdom and compassion and that it is > appropriate in its time and place. ..... > > **In Theravada Buddhism, upaya refers to the Buddha's skill in shaping > his teaching to be appropriate to his audience—simple doctrines and > parables for beginners; more advanced teaching for senior students.** > Mahayana Buddhists see the historical Buddha's teachings as > provisional, preparing the ground for the later Mahayana teachings > (see "Three Turnings of the Dharma Wheel"). > > According to some sources just about anything is allowable as upaya, > including breaking the Precepts. Zen history is full of accounts of > monks realizing enlightenment after being struck or shouted at by a > teacher. In one famous story, a monk realized enlightenment when his > teacher slammed a door on his leg and broke it. > > Obviously, this no-holds-barred approach potentially could be abused. Upaya or "skillful means" is a popular concept in Mahayana Buddhism. When the Buddha tells one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience, based on their specific needs, this is considered upaya. It might be the case that the teaching to one audience is completely the opposite to the teaching to the other audience in Mahayana Buddhism. In certain Mahayana traditions, the teacher may even break the precepts (for example, drinking alcohol ), or shout at or hit the disciples, as part of the skillful means (upaya) to teach them. 1. Does this exist in Theravada Buddhism? 2. Please provide examples of upaya from the Pali Canon. 3. From the Pali Canon or Theravada Buddhism, would the Buddha even tell completely opposite things to different audiences? 4. From the Pali Canon or Theravada Buddhism, could the Buddha break his own rules, or even do things like shouting or hitting in order to teach his disciples?

People who have done wrong to me remain in my memory and continuously stay in my mind. I have feelings of ill will and hatered towards them...to revenge...how do I get out of the feelings of ill will...

How does upaya (skillful means) feature in Tibetan Buddhism? I'm just intrigued, because the texts I've spent longer trying to 'get' seem to be more inspired by the lotus sutra.

Sometimes during everyday conversation, you can notice based on someone's subtle feedback, that they may be misinterpreting something you are telling them. For the sake of the question, please suspend doubt in the premise itself: This literal truth causes confusion and ignorance for them, but our hypothetical lie communicates the truth effectively and even helps gently erode away the delusions they suffer from. (Because our words were exactly what they needed to hear, so that when their delusions distort their understanding, it lands on the truth.) Is this really a lie, or is it perfect language? (Is it a corrupted compromise between them?) --- EDIT: More specifically, is it breaking the precept of false speech? > I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech. *Is a lie still false if it communicates the truth?*

When someone needs my help, I try to answer their questions as best as I can. Sometimes, the questions make no sense (from my perspective) and from there I struggle. For some things, the person is just too far away to get it. Sometimes I come up with great metaphors, simple explanations for complex situations, but unfortunately this doesn't always happen. What am I supposed to do when it does not happen, when I know what to reply, but that would be too much for the person to understand? Should I just ignore them?

If we are caught in the great web of desire and aversion, and are roiling in Samsara, helpful or well meaning advise (to let go, to be in the moment, to inspect the emptiness of reality, to not indulge in distractions, to not follow emotions blindly) may fall on deaf ears. Sometimes when the Buddha encountered such people, he seemed to have a knack to lead them to realization of the drawbacks of Samsara. Ex. Stories of Kisa Gotami or Patacara (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.10.01.than.html) Other times, he wasn't so successful in making others happy, as with the case of his father who was very aggrieved about losing a successor, or monks in his order who plotted against him or the sangha. Sometimes even expulsion didn't seem to help. In fact, Buddha initially had reservations about teaching the Dhamma at all - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html It is unclear whether it was his wise words, or his enlightened mindful compassionate energy presence or the receptiveness of the listener that led some lucky ones to this realization. In any case, lacking the wisdom of the Buddha, we may alienate those we seek to help by explaining the suffering of Samsara when they expect conventional help. In these situations, would it be wise for a Buddhist to offer everyday immediate *samsaric* help, like, taking someone out to a movie or to a drink to forget their pain (obviously only works in suffering of a lower intensity than losing your family to death)? Or, would it harm the Buddhist himself, by weakening his/her belief in Dhamma? i.e. implying Dhamma isn't always the best cure Which is more compassionate? Or, what would an aspiring Bodhisattva do?