Being vague for the sake of not speaking divisive or malicious speech. I know of a monk who had sex with nun(s) and was disrobed/expelled (later reordained too) From my perspective, a lay person, would it be wise to not learn the dharma from a person like this who has created such a root downfall (I don't know the correct term, but broken vows that cause one to be expelled) I don't mean be harmful to the person either (of course) I just mean should I as a lay practitioner not listen to this person in regards to dharma?

What is the meaning of "her way of turning her head" below? > By her smile and her looks, > > Her pride and her false modesty, > > **Her way of turning her head** or closing her eyes, > > Her fine words and her fits of anger and jealousy > > The provocativeness of her walk, > > > Woman drives a man mad. > > The net of lust is full: > > All men are caught in it. > > Whether she is seated, lying down, walking or standing, > > A glance, a lifting of the eyebrow is enough > > For the inexperienced fool > > To be completely intoxicated by her. Source: Maha Prajnaparamita Sastra , part 2.3 (Indifference toward women), written by Nagarjuna, and translated by Gelongma Karma Migme Chödrön.

I was part of a religious group that claimed to be everything that the Buddha teaches. But, when you listen to their teachings, you can tell discrepancies between their teachings and Buddhist teachings. I just saw many people being misguided, but I do not know what to do. (Just to clarify, the religious group I'm referring to is neither Mahayana nor Theravada. But, the question can be generalized further if necessary.) On one end, I do not wish to create any conflict among anyone. On the other end, I feel sad that many people are misguided into the teaching. So, the question is: What should I do? Any answers based on experience would be AWESOME, and experience + Scripture references (said by famous teachers or based on Pali Canon) would be an Awesome+++infinity. :) Once again, I hope to find a method that does not create animosity. Thanks Buddhist Community! Praises to the Dharma. ******As for an explanation on how this question is different from the forum titled "How to address wrong view", it's pretty much the same, except this is more scenario-based. I just wanted a different perspective/insight to this specific scenario. My ultimate goal is to avoid conflict!!!

*Coming from a closed, probably ill-intended and insulting [question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23210/did-the-buddha-narcistically-judge-people-unfairly-with-self-conceit) , or not, but anyway it's root is actually good to investigate:* How comes that praising oneself is unskillful but the teacher of it does? There are many places in the teachings, where the Buddha speaks in "glorification" of the "Buddha". >`(Mv.I.6.7) Upaka the Ājīvaka saw the Blessed One traveling on the road between Gayā and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing him said to him, “Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?” >(Mv.I.6.8 ) When this was said, the Blessed One replied to Upaka the Ājīvaka in verses: >`“All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering.` >`All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [=Dhp 353]` >`I have no teacher, and one like me can’t be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart.` >`For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I,` >`To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of the Kasis. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.”` >(Mv.I.6.9) “From your claims, my friend, you deserve to be an infinite conqueror.” >`“Conquerors are those like me who have reached fermentations’ end. I’ve conquered evil qualities, and so, Upaka, I’m a conqueror.”` >When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and—shaking his head, taking a side-road—he left.` ([The Discussion of the Group of Five](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,8043.msg13286.html#msg13286)) As this sample shows, such can lead to not benefical situation for one, thinking "how arrogant". Lowering others, praising oneself... yet teaching that such is not good... Broad believe is that the Dhamma teaches generally not so speak about ones good qualities and skills, which seems to be paradox when facing such and lead possible to questions like: >Was his mind defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)? **So what is that all about with this paradox?** **How to explain that his disciples propably blame all others in certain ways and prais just the Buddha and his Dhamma, and his disciples with whole heart?** Just a "[Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi) , or how should this statement be understood in a Dhammic way, so to posible do not react foolish like Upaka the Ājīvaka did? *[[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]*

Does anyone know anything about Tsem Rinpoche? I watched a few of his talks on Youtube recently, and found him to be incredibly charismatic.

How can I find a teacher who is a stream entrant? Any suggestions? Recommendations?

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?

Have any important Buddhists made any claim/s about Krishnamurti's teachings? Especially (caveat I know nothing about this) his claim that > "Tell them **there is *nothing* to understand**" Bold emphasis is mine . or > He claimed that the demand for enlightenment was the only thing > standing in the way of enlightenment itself, if enlightenment existed > at all.

Will someone explain Bhavanga and Javana in simple way? At times, they seem non-comprehensible.

While even most teacher today are ex-monks (someone who rejected the refuge and went back to the lower life), isn't it clear that such a person has own problems with his faith? How could one nevertheless rely on such people often "patiseit" the Gems? My person wonders if there is any reliable story of an ex-monk having become a , by the Buddha, by the Sanga and good people, praised Dhamma teacher. Can any reference in the history, beside of the modern degenerated, be found that one leaves the Buddhas religion (bond) by dis-jointing/robing, the Savaka Sangha, takes on "a wordily mission" and made even some merits while doing so? (Not that there are also those going back to lower life but still wearing the clothers of the Arahats. And there are those never weared the robe but lived the holly life a while who went back to lower life for "missions of gains in the world".) *[This question is not for trade, exchange, stackes or what ever bonds to the world given, but for cleansing and liberation, receiving and serving it]*

I have a friend who is in/with the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) and she states the importance of relying upon a spiritual guide. I know that this meditation practice is a part of the Tibetan Lamrim practice. What I ask is who created this "necessity" or concept in Buddhism? This seems to me that it completely contradicts the Buddhas teaching! From the mahaparinibbana sutta : > "Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto > yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your > island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. There is more to that sutta but I do not want to link massive paragraphs. While conventionally we need teachers to teach us things. We even had a teacher, our parents, teach us how to bathe correctly! Though from my understanding in Buddhism, the Buddha IS the teacher! He IS the example and the dharma IS his teachings of the truth. So who taught this necessity for a teacher and to what degree is this a necessity? From my understanding only a Buddha is self realised, and arhant is a disciple so by definition an arhant has relied upon a teacher, but that teacher can specifically be Buddha, via the suttas.

I am keen on finding a teacher that is experienced in Samatha meditation. I have come to understand meditation as a skill to be practiced and developed over time. This practice is something I plan to take seriously and dedicate myself to, but have struggled to find local teachers. I am wondering if there are any known means of perhaps finding virtual teachers, or how those of you without access to a local sangha have taken this important step. In seeking out a teacher I do have concerns about being misguided by someone that is not themselves an advanced meditator. I do strive towards the path to stream entry and I worry that in my inexperience I may lack the discernment to know when a teaching is solid or not. Any advice in this regard would be much appreciated as well. It is worth noting that I am fond of the teachings of the Thai Forest Lineage but would not be closed off to welcoming teachings from other traditions :) Thank you!

 This print was my father’s. He wrote on the back ‘Ming-Peu 13th century priest’. Who was Ming Peu? I don’t think ‘Peu’ is either pinyin or Wade-Giles. He appears to be wearing Japanese dress. The kimono is open to the waist. His head is not shaven. Monastic rules for shaving may not yet have been set down in the 13th century. What is the difference between a monk and a priest? 13th century would make him potentially contemporaneous with Dogen-zenji.

The question is likely inappropriate here, but I'll try anyway. Hopefully nobody will take offense. Are anagamis/arahants common (1000+) nowadays? "Uncommon" would be, for example, that all the anagamis/arahants you know are renowned teachers. Likely less than 100 worldwide. On the other hand, "common" would be if you know of 3 or 4 anagamis/arahants around in the same temple. Hinting at a much bigger number worldwide, on the thousands. I'm sure someone that goes frequently to temples can give a clear answer. Or maybe someone can do some back of the envelope math. Thanks.

Since a Tibetan religious leader is often counted in the West and under modern people (yet actually known just in Tibet and as far as western modern media reach, unknown or not regarded in 95% of the Buddhist World), it would be good to ask of what rule and status this well-known person actually has in regard of the Buddhas Sasana, Dhamma-Vinaya. Taken this as reference and base of the question: What is the/a formal status of the Dalai Lama according to Vinaya? (for example: Bhikkhu, Samanera, Brahman, teacher of other sect, faithful lay follower, one having attained ordination by thief, doubter, trader, politician... and why?) What is the ideal status (at least as recognize-able broadly) of the Dali Lama according to the Dhamma? (for example: faithful worldling, doubtful worldling, stream-enter, ... Arahat, Paccekabuddha... and why) *[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for release from this wheel]*

For a while now i have been wondering about how buddhist monks have time for their own practice. When i see buddhist monks like *Ven. Yuttadhammo, Ajahn Brahm and Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi* who contribute so much to the teaching of the dhamma and have set in motion so many initiatives like making videos, written books, teaching pali language, teaching on retreats etc. i wondered when and how they have time for their own practice? Thank you for your time. Lanka

In [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/41278/is-there-any-skillful-use-of-using-we-in-addressing-certain-opinion#comment67170_41283) , Samana Johann wrote, > worthy to raise a question on it and it's perfect training to use only 3-person and no calling of names, adressing just proper positions The topic is, using "3rd person" modes of speech -- instead of personal pronouns like "I" and "you" and "we". I think that means, in English, that instead of saying for example: > Would you like a glass of water? ... or more politely ... > May I fetch you a glass of water? ... you might ask instead ... > Would the Venerable accept a glass of water? Similarly perhaps the venerable might refer to himself in the third person -- so perhaps, for example, "This person will...", instead of, "I will...". And perhaps you're expected to refer to yourself by your own "title" too ... > Would the venerable allow "this person" (instead of "allow me") to fetch a glass of water? ... or instead of "this person", perhaps "this novice" or "this householder" or whatever your "proper position" is, instead of "I"? --- What can you tell me about this topic? What are the social conventions -- how does that vary, from person to person, from one society to another, from one context to another (e.g. online or in person), from one language to another (e.g. English or otherwise)? The little I've gathered online is that it's polite -- and proper, i.e. good training -- to use a phrase like "Bhante" instead of a person's name, when addressing them directly (i.e. in the second person) ... > - Would you like a glass of water, Bhante? > - Bhante, would you like a glass of water? > - Would Bhante like a glass of water? The last (the third) of these sounds very (excessively) formal to my ear -- and archaic, it disappeared from the English language when "people" stopped having personal servants, who might have said, "Would Sir like a cup of tea?" -- or addressing your parents by their title, "Would Mother like a cup of tea?" Because it's so old-fashioned (I never hear it) it sounds unnatural to me -- formal but an "affectation" -- and therefore, to be avoided! Unless it is conventional, still? I guess I most specifically want to know how to address people (Venerables) online, especially on this site, and in English -- though understanding how to talk in person could be useful too -- and especially about when using English (or other European languages, or North American). I don't think I've seen a site online, where people avoid the 2nd person altogether. Is it something which varies from one monk to another? If there are three options ... - Informal -- "Would you like...?" - Deferential -- "Bhante, would you accept...?" - Ultra-formal -- "Would Bhante accept...? ... will some monks prefer one and some another? Should I vary what I say (or how I say it) depending on the feedback I get from the specific person? Is there any safe default, which can always be considered not-impolite?

As possible also observed, when teaching, the address of ones position by 'we' is hardly found in the teaching of the Buddha and his disciples. It seems that this often used way of using 'we' in argumentation, is purely a tool to demonstrate power and backhold, used also for winning anothers favor, in cases when 'we' includes the listener or could, if he takes on it. In most cases it seems to be actually an often deliberated lie, as for how could one speak for another, possible even disregard those one might incl. in one 'we'. So what do you think, is there any case, or in which case, can position 'we' be used skilfull, in which cases does it not point on ones attachments, greed, desires: unwise after gain and identification. In which case is it not clear to be seen as an outcome of sakkāyadiṭṭhi (on-group-holding/group-identification-view) of even gross outwardly sort? Is it a word a non-worldling woul make use of, and if, in which circumstances? Maybe one like also sacrifices samples found under the leading teachers of past and present, as addition to ones gift of sharing ones reflections here. Would the use of 'we' be a good warn-signal, if tracing such in others speech? `*ironical*' What do we think? What would we answer here? *[Note that this isn't given for exchange, stacks, and what ever world-binding similar trade but for escape from this wheel]*

I have been having questions from time to time about my practise. I do the cushion practise once a day in the morning for half an hour and try to follow the five precepts through the day. A lot of times through the day I have questions that make me feel like I need to discuss this with someone who is more experienced than I am. How does one "find a teacher" that can help me customise path & methods for a better practise? *I live in a city called Bombay, in India.* Any help and/or insight appreciated. *PS: I have had the privilege of learning through a 10-day SN Goenka Vipassana Retreat once.* :) -With Love & Chai.

Thinking about the two kinds of goodness in giving, and about debt when we receive a gift (*guṇā*), my person just thought to ask if there is a Sutta which points the different kinds of debt to those two kinds of giving? One kind of (debt) giver is perhaps best embodied by Mara: e.g. enemies disguised as friends, or the strings of sensuality (*kāmaguṇā*). The other kind of (debt) giver (who gives debts torward debtlessness: end of *upādāna*, entertainment) is the *Bhagavatā*, the One who can Give, the Liberal, along with the other gods (starting by parents, teacher, admirable friends). Just thought, next to the many Suttas around this fact, if there might be one direct pointing out the two kinds of *guṇā* and the debts in receiving the given, the inclination to certain destination by association and increasing debts. Of course given, free of the first kind of *guṇā* (without wordily strings), Dhamma given in line with Dhamma, is preferred, is possible acceptable. (For those possible not so familar with the use of the word *guṇā*, it's used as "goodness" in dhammic countries, for example "person of goodness"/"figue of merits" when speaking about people who one by dhammic law owes debts, like parents, leader, teacher... While the word is also used for the givers of sensuality.) *[Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]*