How closely aligned are Buddhist ethics and Nietzschean values? I know a little about both, and may even have read a comparative study (some time ago). Was hoping to harmonise them via 'karma': the agent experiences the result. But there seems no linguistic or rational reason which is strong enough to believe in rebirth, so it seems to me that Nietzsche's analysis (only the success of the superman matters) cannot be reconciled with Buddhism. If so, I'll probably side with Buddhist ethics (I think we need art, not individuals, and Buddhism doesn't make only for worthless aesthetics), but it's a blow, because in the process we may have to sacrifice what is - it is sometimes claimed - is the very highest type of well being possible. This question is just from someone who has read a small bit of Nietzsche studies (I'm not philosopher), but I take claims about morality quite seriously, that's all.

Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only really hurting ourselves? At least in everyday senses of suffering. Perhaps not including sickness, old age, and death (these seem like counter examples). But when we suffer from everyday pangs of frustration, due to e.g. frustration with our visual appearance, or lack of wealth (these are just examples). Thanks for your contribution: looking for the limits of what is and is not our own fault.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa (x3) In regards to the spreading of buddhist monasteries in the west within climates being rather different than that in Asia, I've seen pictures of monks wearing jackets, beanies and shoes considering how the weather may be quite cold/wet (in the UK for instance). Yet, isn't an offence in the vinaya for monastics to be wearing what could be considered a lay disciple's clothing ? > "But cold, lord, is the winter night. The 'Between-the-Eights' is a > time of snowfall. Hard is the ground trampled by cattle hooves. Thin > is the spread of leaves. Sparse are the leaves in the trees. Thin are > your ochre robes. And cold blows the Verambha wind. Yet still the > Blessed One says, 'Yes, young man. I have slept in ease. Of those in > the world who sleep in ease, I am one.'" https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.034.than.html I'd gladly learn more regarding these rules from those wishing and willing to share, May you be well.

Why are some Buddhists in the west hostile to academic analyses of the religion?

The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"? It's a facetious question. Are Buddhas e.g. submissive and androgynous? I am asking because 'alpha male' is a recurring idea in Western culture right now, and I wondered what Buddhism and the imitation of Buddhas' character, has to say about that. An answer claimed androgyny is "consistent with Buddhist philosophy". No self may imply submissiveness, in some ways: not putting your own "me" and "mine" first. 'Alpha male' is strongly tied to the senses and wealth, status etc.. Which clearly Buddhas reject as mundane. So I was thinking "no"; but perhaps Buddhism offers a critique of 'macho'.

What is the meaning of "in and of itself" in the [Maha-satipatthana Sutta DN 22](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN22.html) ?

Is there a scientific consensus on meditation? I've seen it said that different parts of the brain are activated during meditation. Is that true for all experienced meditators, all forms of meditation, etc.? It has to do *something*, was originally my take on Buddhism -- at the time merely because it has historically *thrived*: it being pretty obvious that whatever it did was a 'good' thing.

Many western Buddhists have non-western names: - **Jeffrey Block** - *Bhikkhu Bodhi* - **Geoffrey DeGraff** - *Thanissaro Bhikkhu* or *Ajaan Geoff* - **Deirdre Blomfield-Brown** - *Pema Chödrön* Are they given to them when they are ordained as monks/bhikkuni (like *Dances with Wolves*), or are they more informal (e.g. *Ajaan Geoff*)? Just curious.

I've come across this term recently and have seen quite a few opinions and definitions. My understanding is that it is actually a hardcore Theravada movement that is in some ways a conservative backlash against watered down Buddhism in the West. Is this a correct assessment?

What can you say to someone whose loved one (e.g. spouse or parent) is dying? Assume if you can that in the West, e.g. Europe and America, although people (strangers) might have heard the first thing about Buddhism, but they **haven't formally** practised it nor intentionally studied its doctrines in any detail (what if they've just seen some "fake Buddha quotes" for example). So, although a simple catchphrase (perhaps just a few words of Dhamma) might help a Buddhist as a "reminder", someone else (a non-Buddhist) might not recognise/understand that. Or I would ask, what you could you even say to a layperson who does know some Buddhism -- except that most of the people who I'm likely to contact don't, and I doubt it's a moment to begin to lecture them (uninvited). For example a simple statement like, "Don't be attached", might sound like, "Don't be ill" -- or, "abandon that person" -- which might seem impractical, too academic, or even cruel if you don't understand the context (and might need more explanation than is possible in the context). Or for example, saying, "Buddhist doctrine says that..." sounds like they're being lectured, and at a moment when they're concerned about something other than Buddhism (so maybe that too is not the right way to frame or to open a conversion). I don't want to talk too much about what I think the difficulties are, so I'll try to stop; if you have questions (about this question), you can a comment to ask. But as well as being **reluctant to lecture** someone unasked, I'm generally not sure what to say if someone tells me that they're suffering somehow. For example if someone is mentally ill and tells you something about (or something based on) their delusions or hallucinations, I think I've read that maybe people shouldn't encourage (nor perpetuate nor even argue against) those fantasies (e.g. "yes" and "tell me more about that" or "that's untrue"), and instead you're supposed to talk about consensual (maybe conventional) realities. So I worry that "tell me about your suffering" (or even "yes that's sad" or "I'm so sorry") might only reinforce the suffering, especially if I've nothing to add, nor even understand how to steer their thinking (steer the topic) by asking questions -- possibly (at the risk of being prejudiced) it might be good for them to experience "brahmaviharas", or "recollection of virtue", or even just some "calm" etc., but I'm not sure how someone might get there by my asking them questions -- so maybe that (asking questions) is not the right approach either, or is it? I quote [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31451/254) as an ideal -- slightly out of context, because that was posted as an antithesis of "fear" or aversion -- but perhaps this is an example of an ideal: > ... basically leave all Dharma-Theory home and dive into the world, while learning to be authentic and helpful. The end result of this is an image of someone very warm, strong, and open, who has enough inner power and confidence that he or she can be very down-to-earth, very real, without formalities and artificial boundaries that come from fear. This is very different from the aloof ascetic image cultivated on the previous stage. It is someone very warm and very *real*. The absence of overt Dharma-Theory (in relating to others) might be appropriate (though perhaps you're informed by theory, or practice, even if you're not teaching it formally/explicitly). I guess I'm looking for answers from personal experience (your own or someone else's) -- what kind of thing can you say that actually works in the circumstance, is helpful? When I've tried to do this in the past, it was by trying to share (recollect, recount) what might have been helpful in retrospect from my own experience (of a relationship with a dying loved one). My doing that might depend on making assumptions about the people I'm talking to, so, and I've only limited experience -- perhaps you can tell me more experience or even generalise from experience ... or not? It happens and will happen a lot (that I meet people in this situation), it would be good to be better prepared for that if possible. --- At the risk of being off-topic (maybe delete it if it is), here's a story -- as an example of what seems to be a beneficial effect of a kind word (i.e. it "kept me unexpectedly calm"). Someone posted a question on Twitter -- *What is the kindest thing a stranger has done or said to you?* -- which has thousands of replies. And one of the answers to that question, which I thought was remarkable, was [this one](https://twitter.com/JohnFPfaff/status/1102754618562564098) (quoted here): > One of my twins was born with multiple heart and esophageal defects. Had open-heart surgery at 47 hours old, weighing only 4.5 lbs. When the surgeon described the procedure, it sounded impossible. But the surgery went well. He has more to go, but we let our guard down. > > 24 hours later, get a call that he's failing (he was at one hospital, my wife and his twin at the other, and I'm running back and forth). It looks grim; Plan A is an untested long-shot, and there's no Plan B. I race out of Hospital 1 to grab a cab to Hospital 2. > > Get in cab, driver asks me how I want to get there. Exhausted and angry, I snarl "my son is dying at Hospital 2, so whatever way you think is faster." > > We drive in silence for a very long time. > > As we get near, he starts to ask me what is wrong, and I tell him. He replies, as we pull into the hospital, "I am Muslim, and tomorrow is Friday. I will pray for him all five times tomorrow." And as I hop out of the cab, I hear him start to pray, "bismallah ar-rahman...." > > As I raced thru the hospital, that one small act of kindness, after I had been so surly to him at the start, stuck with me, and for some reason kept me unexpectedly calm during a night of staring at the Plan A machine, hoping it would defy expectations and work. > > (It worked.) > > It wasn't some huge thing. But that small act of compassion made such a huge difference as I spent the night alone w this insanely strong but insanely sick little boy--and who is now quite healthy. > > It's one of the few things that still chokes me up when I think abt those days. I suppose the bits of Islamic doctrine which a non-Muslim might know are "[Inshallah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inshallah) " (something to do with awareness that things happen according to God's will i.e. not always our will) -- and "[bismallah ar-rahman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmala) " (which the OP quoted and remembered) i.e., "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful" -- maybe any outcome is "a mercy". Please don't answer that that's not Buddhist doctrine, that isn't what I'm asking -- I quote this as an example, because I'm impressed with the effect[s] it had on the person to whom it was said. My question might be, what could a Buddhist (instead of a Muslim) possibly say in that situation? It might be difficult if the person you're talking to knows even less about Buddhism than about Islam -- so they might not "recognise" what you say. But Dhamma is "evident", isn't it, so maybe there's always some common ground already, whether they've ever studied Buddhism or not. What might you say that could help a stranger? Or help a friend who you're not going to see again, maybe someone who lives far away? What if it's just a short conversation, in person -- or, what if you're writing a personal letter to distant family or an old friend in another country (or maybe a phonecall would be better)? One other thing I see in the story above is that a person who is suffering will make things worse -- "Exhausted and angry, I snarl" and "after I had been so surly to him". So it might be important to help, it affects everyone, even including those they're trying to care for; but it can also be difficult, a time when they might be more troubled, less tolerant and less outgoing or communicative themselves -- i.e. more "surly" (or if not surly, more guarded).

I'm just starting the study of Buddhism and I'm really interested in the whole philosophy of Buddhism. Can someone please suggest some books for beginners ? Thank you.

I simply ask myself rather one could make sense of the Dharma and apply it without the concepts of rebirth and kamma? Though for me it is my personal approach to the Dharma, which i find to be highly meaningful in both theoretical and practical manner. As like no other intellectual complex, I think the Dharma could claim something like describing the essence and nature of being - if such claim should ever be stressed. I would not dare to discuss this question as a devout follower. My interest is simply philosophical in its nature. So i am just about to read C.W.Gorwans "Philosophy of the Buddha" and I am very pleased about how well balanced and respectful he treats the topic as a scholar of analytic philosophy. Considering the concepts of kamma and rebirth, ONE of the approaches the author offers, is that the Lord Buddha just simply took kamma and rebirth as beliefs deriving from his culture, beliefs so deep and taken for granted that he would not spend a second on doubting it - although he must have been very critical to all kinds of believe. But for example, if you consider doubtful questioning in western philosophy, such as "the meditations" of Descartes and Husserl, it seems mostly obvious that doubt could never ever stressed out in the whole sense. Even though while claiming that radical doubt will set up everything to the disposition of rational examination, there will always be some "leftover" belief as remains (for Descartes it was god , for Husserl it must have been the ego). The latter should also be a position that C.Taylor stresses in his historical treatise "Sources of the Self". Ok, but coming back in addressing my question to you as experts in the Dharma, what are your opinions about this issue? Could we make sense of the teaching of the Lord Buddha without believing that we will be reborn? As for the concept of kamma, it is possible to make sense of it without believing in rebirth. Well I do not expect a discussion on a very high intellectual level, but maybe an exchange of ideas and opinions on the applicability of "Buddhism" and its precious teaching in a mindset that could be called "western". As I found out that it is a major critique of native Buddhists about western fellows that they don't sufficiently reflect the teaching according to their own culture and should not simply adopt it as a belief - which would actually be contradicting the Dharma. warm regards!

Lineage is important to teaching by gurus and the succession of teaching because it helps ensure that the teaching is complete and intact, and that the teachers are sincere. One must be granted permission to teach by one's Guru, which means that by using Induction, we can see that all lineages must go back to the Buddha himself. But I wonder, in the modern world, if this has not become irrelevant? Any person can find the teachings now, in various translations, and so the issue falls on that person to determine what they feel is legitimate. Modern people are unlikely to become monks, and I have never seen any definitive statement that laypeople never can achieve enlightenment (rather the opposite). One need not join a community, follow a guru or even know another person with the same 'theories' to practice and make progress. So, is lineage still important? Can we not fix down a translation of the books, make them public, offer opportunities for retreats or guidance and just allow people to choose and go forward for themselves? There is no particular lineage in science, even if some persons are well-regarded and often referred to. Anyone with access to a library could become a Physicist, regardless what schools they go to, or whom the teachers studied under. The knowledge is the guru, not a person. In fact, the Buddha said, "Be ye lamps unto yourselves." Is this not what he meant?

I always wondered why do people that practice Buddhist practices, label or opt not to label themselves "Buddhist".

I grew up in a western country raised in a western atmosphere with a western mentality. I'm talking things like the pyramid of needs and how apparently self-gratification and personal success are the highest on the checklist. I grew up with an attitude that stressed individuality above everything else, self-accomplishment as the most important trait of a person, and everything under it (money, fame, finance, cars, houses, etc). When I started practicing Buddhism, I began to look into the nature of the "self" and the ego, and now it seems to me like there is an inner cultural conflict. What does Buddhism say about success and accomplishment in life? It seems on one hand you have an absolute western mentality about achievement and individual strength and standing out from all others as an ultimate success. On the other, Buddhism and a lot of eastern cultures traditionaly emphasize humility, selflesness, and non-attachment to one's ego. Thank you all~.

What is called "Buddhism" is a whole range of different schools, sects, practices etc. that has in common that they are based on the teachings of Siddharta Gautama/the Buddha. But is the name "Buddhism" used as a name for these teachings anywhere else than in the "West"? How and when did the name "Buddhism" appear?

There is the much talked about example of "zen sickness". But I wondered can any buddhist theory or practice can ever be harmful to a human? I'm looking for an answer from anyone, not necessarily a Buddhist perspective. Though, of course, I'd be dismissive of anything unreasonable.

The following section in the Modernist poem The Waste Land is often linked to Buddhism, in the academic literature. > Burning burning burning burning / O Lord Thou pluckest me out / O Lord > Thou pluckest // burning It ends section three, *The Fire Sermon *. I wanted to ask 1. How common is the term "lord" for Buddha? 2. Would the followers of any of the Buddhist traditions ask the Buddha, who gave the fire sermon, to choose them, or pluck them out? I'm just a little skeptical that it is about the Buddha, despite the title to that section.

I know labelling people is not in the spirit of Buddhism. I am for example member of a Buddhist society, not because I'm so eager to be one but because in my country each religious society gets quite some money for having members (and if your not a member, the church gets the money). But when do people (not born into a Buddhist country) call themselves Buddhists?

Aren't Buddhists (with Buddhist I refer to an ideal Buddhist or Buddhists monk) actually not doing enough to prevent harm in this world? So, Buddhists don't have any attachment to things and work towards reduction of suffering in the world. Given the focus and discipline dedicated Buddhist has, they could use this to become successful businessmen for example and use that money/power to help people. But many don't, they seem very passive from what I have read so far. In a sense Buddhist not trying to accumulate money/power and use it to help people and change world, is hypocritical?