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.

Would it be similar like the destiny for monks? It's said that one living on alms, not doing his duties (foremost sense-restrain) but enjoys sensual pleasures increases his debts: e.g. poorness, strong dependend, low states. And those without metta and virtue, fall under the category of thieves. Do those solcial-consumer, relaying even on alms not even given for the liberating practice, not maybe even steal or misuse from both communities and thereby head toward much pain, generate toward real outcasts everywhere?

I wouldn't have thought so in the 80's or the 90's, or maybe not so intensely. But nowadays, I frequently have to think: this person is behaving like this, like he or she is not human. And then, I had the theory that, if the world had 2 billion people before, and then 4 billion, 6 billion, and 8 billion now, where do the extra 6 billion souls come from? Do they have to come from the souls of insects, reptiles, rodents, and other animals? And then when I read the Six Paths in Buddhism , there are 6 paths of beings reincarnation: 1. God / Heaven path 2. Human 3. Demigod 4. Hell 5. Hungry spirits 6. Beasts The first 3 are Virtue paths, and the last 3 are Evil paths, and Demigod is into fighting, so they are sometimes considered to be the Evil path. So if the number of beings in each path is even, then it explains well: only 33% of people we see are the God / Heaven or Human path. The other 67% are Evil path. It could be the Hell path that would hurt people no matter what, the Hungry spirit path that are extremely selfish and always ponder how to take advantage of others, the Beast path who are apathetic to others and have sociopath personalities. Can the Six Paths correctly explain it?

I have seen so many people till now who are very miserable because they were born ugly, poor, with less intelligence. And this world is cruel to ugly, poor and dumb people and there is no doubt about that, it's a fact. And I'm also one of those people who got treated badly for being ugly and unintelligent. I neither have good looks nor I've intelligence and good memory and because of that I couldn't excel in my academics as our academic success is measured by exams that test our memory. I am disgusted with this miserable life and want to get rid of this misery. There is no hope in present life but I want a good life in my next birth where I'll be blessed with beauty, intellect and good traits and devotion. What should I do in this life to get such good rebirth in my next life? Or it would be better if I didn't have to take birth in this world.

What is the difference between merit and virtue from a Buddhist standpoint? Is it the difference between being and doing? Which is better from a karmic perspective? I think the idea of merit in Buddhism is silly because it creates a sense of ownership, like a reward-system or something, whereas virtue seems more elegant and less competitive.

Would an enlightened person (stream enterer at the minimum) ever [falsely] make the claim that he is lying?

When a person or a group of people identify themselves with "the good" (in opposition to "not so good" or even "the evil" of others), quite often this can lead to "the good" getting overly aggressive in its pursuit of the goodness and de-facto turning into evil. Is this an inevitable problem arising due to identification/reification or is there a way to keep it under control and identify with the good without becoming the evil? If so, how can that be achieved? What guidelines do various Buddhist schools offer on this topic, if any? P.S. by "to identify with" I mean "to consider themselves to be affiliated with, or to be representative of, the true *something* (in this case *the good*)"

Edit 2: It is really hard to find a corresponding word to 功德 in English... Maybe I should abandon using the Sanskrit word guṇa... And consider 功德 and guṇa as "**qualities that leads to better existence in samsara or liberation or buddhahood**". --- I am recently considering a question, and thus I found that I have difficulties understanding what is **guṇa/功德**. The question is: If a person is with firm good heart (which may even be renunciation or bodhicitta), but unknowingly serves and follows unjust masters, does one still generate **guṇa/功德**? That is, approaching better existence in samsara or even liberation or buddhahood? Note: I have known that: a person with deep firm **renunciation** will eventually go further and further on **liberation path** and finally attain **Arhat**; a person with deep firm **bodhicitta** will eventually go further and further on **bodhisattva path** and finally attain **Buddhahood**. But the question that I have difficulties with involves the concept of **guṇa/功德**. So I have spend days thinking about it but I still failed to reason out an answer. --- Edit 1: Here is the meaning of **guṇa/功德** from .

Or is it more complicated than that? i.e random?

Does any Buddhist school teach about False (fake, hypocritical) Virtue (goodwill, goodness)? What it is, how common it is, how it differs from the true authentic virtue, perhaps its causes and its results - those kinds of things. Is virtue in Buddhism *objective*, so that we can speak about true authentic virtue as something definite and timeless, or is all virtue always necessarily subjective and partial? Or perhaps there are two kinds of virtue, mundane virtue - partial and subjective - and supramundane virtue of non-attachment and non-identification? If so, is there continuity and/or a single principle in common between both the worldly virtue and the supramundane virtue, so that we could simultaneously behave in line with both, or does behaving in line with supramundane virtue require going against or leaving behind the worldly virtue? Is the authentic virtue something we can side with, against both *the vice* and *the false virtue* or is it something that requires going beyond the dichotomy and accepting all virtues and vices (or rejecting all virtues and vices)? Basically, can we side with the Virtue&Truth in opposition to Vice&Hypocrisy, or is juxtaposing the two a wrong way to look at it, according to Buddhism? What do the Pali Canon, the commentaries, and the Mahayana texts and commentaries teach about all this, if anything?

Some laws coincide with Buddhist precepts for e.g. penalizing murder and theft. But there are other laws like traffic rules or Covid-19 rules which have no direct equivalent in Buddhism. However, we tend to frown upon people who disobey traffic rules and sometimes see them as immoral if they keep deliberately breaking traffic rules repeatedly. Are breaking traffic rules deliberately and repeatedly a violation of Buddhist precepts and virtues? Is it a violation of Right Action? If it is not a violation of Buddhist precepts, virtues and Right Action, then is it a sign of a unwholesome or unskillful mindset from a Buddhist perspective? And why?

In discussions about how to translate words such as *averena* (a negation of some quality), I've seen two general kinds of answer: or the compound word is not just the negation of the suffix, but its polar opposite; or the compound word is just a negation of the suffix. In the case of *averena*, the first method renders '*love*', '*loving-kindness*', or whatever translation is used for *metta*; in the second, '*non-hatred*' is the translated concept. This discussion (on how to translate negations) has made me think on the role of altruism in Buddhism (which can be seen as unrelated to the root topic at first). I know there are suttas like [AN 11.1](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html) which explain the importance of virtous conduct to the development of the other factors of the path. These suttas seem to indicate that the main purpose of ethics is to liberate one's own mind (which, of course, makes one a positive influence on others). But also there are suttas like [SN 47.19](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.019.olen.html) state that looking for others is key as well. I don't see both positions as contradictory, but as complementary. And we have as well the teachings on the practice of *Brahmaviharas*, with *metta*, *karuna*, *mudita* and *upekkha* as mind-states to cultivate. Despite all of the above, in the descriptions of the Noble Eightfold Path (which I understand as containing all that's sufficient and necessary for "moving" from *sotapanna* to *arahant*) *Samma Sankappa* is broken down as *nekkhamma*, *abyapada* and *avihimsa*, with at least two of those three factors being words with negative prefixes, which depending on how you translate negations, could indicate **the predominant role of the absence of the unwholesome over the presence of the polar opposite of the unwholesome**, i.e. non-hatred over loving-kindness. After considering all of above, here's the question: **What would you say is the role of altruism** (understood as an active effort for improving the quality of life of other, whether by teaching the Dhamma, giving advice, getting involved in education, improving access to material conditions, etc.) **and other forms of positive** (as "presence of something", not as "good") **wholesome deeds in the different buddhist traditions**? **How important is to buddhist to make the world a better place, not just by developing negative** (as "absence of something", not as "bad") **wholesome qualities, but by changing the general conditions of the world?** EDIT: I'd like to add a new question to give more perspective: As santa100 has noted, the negation of the unwholesome includes the positive wholesome deeds. However, it'd be interesting to know **how important is for the buddhist practice to actively engage in positive wholesome conduct, and why does it matter**. With that I mean: **what effects does have on the world and on ones own mind to do those positive deeds?** My motivation for gaining some perspective on this is to know what to think about the idea of buddhism being not altruistic enough. I'd appreciate personal points of view and/or references to buddhist teaching/discourses that support your views. I apologize for any wrong understanding of the Dhamma I could have expressed in the premisses. Please, correct me if that's the case.

Is there any equivalent quotation from the Buddhist scriptures to the following from the Christian Bible (Matthew 7:3-5 )? > Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay > no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your > brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time > there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the > plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the > speck from your brother’s eye.

Let's say a lay Buddhist has a rat infestation problem in his or her house. Catching rats using traps and killing them is clearly breaking the first precept of not taking a life. What about keeping a pet cat that is sufficiently well fed and taken care of, in the house, without training or encouraging it to catch rats, but nevertheless accepting the possibility that the cat may or may not choose to catch and kill rats, on its own volition, that it may find in the house? **If the pet cat does catch and kill rats, does this break the first precept?** Also, introducing a pet cat, may cause the rats to flee the house on their own, as they may find that it has become an unsuitable place to live in.

Some people, althought saying that following the Buddhas teaching, but maybe do not have much trust or understandig into cause and effect, kamma, saying that richness and success comes from no fear to do evil. If that is the case, why are not all people who have no virtues, no Sila, rich, following their arguments pattern? Isn't it not merely because still having some merits that the downfall does not arises accurate, if one conducts wrong, thinking it will not fall to me? What's the effect of Sila, virtue, on wealth and success? *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment but for release from this wheel)*

" ***To Forgive is the only way to forget*** " Is this one of the sayings of *Lord Buddha*. This quote is beautiful, but I couldn't find the source.

It is said that Virtue is the ultimate weapon . It is also said that virtue automatically leads to enlightenment without any volition or desire to achieve enlightenment . Therefore I want to develop 'heightened' virtue but I am unable to find any sutta which explains what constitutes Virtue. In the following quote from AN 3.90 training for heightened virtue is mentioned: > “And what is the training in heightened virtue? There is the case > where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the > Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains > himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the > slightest fault. This is called the training in heightened virtue. My questions are : 1. What constitutes virtue ?(Any reference to Suttas would be great.If there are any books giving short summary of Patimokkha in English then that would also be great.) 2. How to train myself in virtue ? (Are there any training books available?)