Why use a word thought by some to be offensive even if the meaning isn't meant to be offensive? There is no other word that can be used? Would using another word (or phrase) be compassionate towards those who might get offended by it's use even if the intent wasn't to offend or provoke? Is "Hinayana" so sacred, useful and descriptive that it must be used even when talking to an audience that likely has people in it who would be offended?

Is there any mentioned in the sutras about specific approaches to resolving conflicts? Specifically, I am looking at applying an objective process. For example, if a person disagrees with another on the interpretation of a passage in the sutra, one way is to look at the Pali translation as an objective approach. I am looking at a generic approach, one that presumably can be prescribed to resolve other disputes/conflicts in life. It might consist of a series of prescriptive steps. I understand that the attitude we take is equally important as mentioned in these answers ((https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39050/how-to-get-along/39139#39139) and (https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39050/how-to-get-along/39141#39141)) . Lastly, I believe if such an objective process/approach is possible, it would develop one's ability to self-correct one’s own wrong views and positions. The rationale is that wrong views do lead us to [wrong places (SN56.43)](https://suttafriends.org/sutta/sn56-43/) . Appendix A (extracted from [answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/50958/24967)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If views/positions are not in accordance with accepted rules, prevailing standards and general morality, they are outright considered wrong. Where this is not obvious, the following steps can be prescribed: 1) Having acceptable ombudsmen/mediators or umpires/referees to the disputing parties. 2) Decision via majority or consensus (preferably consisting of experts in the subject matter). Parties involved in conflict/dispute should process presence of mind, be conscientious and truthful. In addition, they should not: - be easily angered or vengeful - be spiteful or vindictive - be jealous and possessive - be scheming and deceitful - be obstinate Factors to consider before engaging in conflict/dispute resolution - appropriate time (and place) - matter should concern something factual - resolution should be fruitful and beneficial - follow the spirit rather than the letter ------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Reification' is making something real, bringing something into being or making something concrete. The Pali suttas say about the relationship between consciousness and wisdom/enlightenment: > *Discernment (wisdom; panna) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the > other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one > discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. MN > 43* Is the Enlightenment or Wisdom of a Buddha a Reification?

During meditation in past, it was observed that if focus is maintained on nostrils, tip of nose and center of forehead(between eyebrows) then it causes cold and cough within 2-3 days of such practice. Surprisingly, it was observed whenever it was practised. Tried the same experiment with other fellows at that time, they also had same symptoms, if not sooner then later. In tipitaka, anywhere mentioned about ill-effects of such combination of meditation focus points? Are these ill effects or could be something else, not taken into consideration? Analysis so far- Kayanupashyana and vednanupashyana both are all about focus, observe, analyse body parts (though not always at single area but bit by bit within whole body). There might be somewhere mentioned about such ill effects, if not then either those suttas were burned off or this assumption is wrong or assumption is correct & it might be due to wrong concentration & observation, "upward air entering as cold & sensing nose part nearby forehead leading to formation of runny nose, cold, cough"

When does right or wrong view at death over ride the karma one has accumulated in life? I was just reading (googling) how right and wrong view when we be die *can* determine our next birth, rather than our karma in general. For genuine Buddhists, this may not be a problem, because that is also temporary. But it's an issue for me, so I wondered *when* that happens, when karma plays less of a role. ---------- Here is what I was reading > right and wrong view at the time of death can only temporary over ride (not eradicate) karma This seems to be the explanation for how evil doers with wrong view can end up with a good rebirth (and virtuous people with right view a poor rebirth): a momentary change of view. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html

There's a question regarding the Dhamma that I really wish to rectify and clear up with you and that's regarding the suicide cases of Channa, Vakkali and Godhika - When I first came across these cases, I was really disappointed and discouraged to practice the Dhamma because I saw Dhamma as the way to prevent people from committing such acts in the first place, but if by practicing the path of Dhamma and reaching Arahant stage and this is a possible blameless result, I became very disillusioned and anxious over the path, moreover hearing the cases of Bhikkhu Samahita and Bikkhu Nanavira also fuelled this, creating a fear that this may be a possible outcome of developing the path. My mental clarity and wellbeing plummeted since hearing these cases, since it raised a lot of doubts and confusions, esp because Dhamma used to be something that gave me hope and is foundational to me, but now there's a lingering sense of hopelessness if this is a possible result of the practice. When I ignore this topic I feel good again, but when it resurfaces again to my mind I feel quite hopeless and anxious again, I know there's so many people who have heard of these cases and who most certainly haven't responded to these cases adversely and in a negative way, so my question is, in light of such cases what is the best way that one should view/understand such cases so that one's own practice and wellbeing isn't affected and that one can continue to practice the path with security, hope, joy, contentment and composure, and walk the path correctly without falling into wrong-views? The ways I have tried to understand and view such cases is that they were cases of euthanasia and since they are highly debated as to whether those 3 monks were arahants before or after they committed suicide, I have realised it is better to instead focus on the 10 Great Disciples of the Buddha who embodied the Dhamma to a greater extent such as Arahant's Mahakassapa, Sariputta, Moggalana, Subhuti, Rahula etc, and hence are the best role-models for one walking the path, Sariputta in fact says "The Teacher has been served by me; the Awakened One’s bidding, done; 70 the heavy load, laid down; the guide to becoming, uprooted. And the goal for which I went forth from home life into homelessness I’ve reached: the end of all fetters. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time as a worker his wage. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time, mindful, alert." This quote is what has personally given me hope that those cases of Suicide are from non-Arahant monks - and thus I have learned to place my faith again by discarding these controversies, and listening to the Dhamma of every monk who have talked on this manner, who have all labelled it is as an akusal (unskilful deed) that must be removed from the mind. I feel like I've answered my own question in many respects, but I still would love to hear another Dhamma practitioner's perspective on this, so that I can reach a more holistic and objective understanding on how to move forward and best navigate myself through these knots & controversies in the Dhamma and not fall into wrong-views. Thank-you so much for taking the time to read this post, I really sincerely appreciate it.

Is it possible for a person to gain liberation while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Is it possible for a person to understand profound universal truths while simultaneously practicing unskillful means? Are skillful means in accordance with profound universal truths? Are profound universal truths in accordance with skillful means? An example of a skillful means is acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth in cyclic existence. An example of a profound universal truth is that the Buddha was not to be regarded as a real and genuine fact as was taught to Anurādha. An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma. An example of a profound universal falsify is to understand the Buddha as a real and genuine fact. Another example of a profound universal falsity is to believe like Yamaka that, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.” Various traditions divide the above conventions into a dichotomy. The labels that are used and the understanding of that dichotomy is different from tradition to tradition. In Theravada, I have seen the dichotomy variously described as right views of two types including, without vs with effluents, definitive vs interpretable, supramundane vs mundane, and in commentarial literature ultimate vs conventional. In Mahayana, the dichotomy is labeled in similar ways but also absolute/ultimate/universal vs conventional/relative/dependent.

[Identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_(Buddhism)#Identity_view_.28sakk.C4.81ya-di.E1.B9.AD.E1.B9.ADhi.29) is the first of the ten fetters. The "eradication" of identity-view is important towards enlightenment. Presumably, "eradication of identity-view" is more than simply claiming, "Yes, there's no self anywhere!!" So, how should one understand what "identity-view" is, and whether it's eradicated? If "eradication" of identity-view marks an important step or stage, can that eradication be analyzed into smaller substeps (e.g. is there an 80-step lesson plan or set of tests towards eradicating it)? Can you give some of important examples of the practical consequence of identity-view: how it affects belief and behaviour? So that it might be possible to use the presence or absence of these beliefs and behaviours to test whether identify-view exists or has been eradicated? Is "eradication of identity-view" synonymous with having no habits? Can you recommend any competent English-language literature on this topic? If there are not good questions to be asking about identity-view please suggest better ones! --- Among the reasons why I'm puzzled are the that [Culavedalla Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html) for example seems to describe it: > As he was sitting there he said to her, "'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?" > > "There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One." Is identity-view the same then as being aware that skandhas exist? The same as being attracted to (clinging to) sense-objects? Isn't the answer to that, "No that's not true, because 'sensual desire' is the **fourth** fetter"? Also, questions about the self come with a warning: "[This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, etc.](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html) " -- so I have **not** been trying to analyze that (views-about-self) ... but maybe I am supposed to know what identity-view is?

**Important note:** I am only using the word "real" only in the sense of meaning "exists and is not an illusion". I am defining "extreme metaphysical nihilism" as the belief that "nothing is real". I do not know if the belief that "nothing is real" is (also) called something else but if it is then please tell me. I consider the view that "nothing is real" as being false. A refutation of the view that "nothing is real" is that consciousness is observably real in the ability to understand "real or unreal". Mental suffering may be verified as real by observing that it exists in reality as what it is deemed to be. Did the Buddha ever refute the view of "extreme metaphysical nihilism" i.e. a view that "nothing is real"?

***I have noticed that a lot of Mahasi practitioners seem to reach sotopanna very quickly.*** What is the difference from other methods of Buddhist Meditation and the Mahasi Method, relative to the apparent speed of attainment in the Mahasi Method? **Maybe you think Mahasi style practice does not lead to these better results?** If so, who, what, where, when and why do you think this? I hope this is an appropriate question but if it's not, that's ok :) metta **PLEASE NOTE**: I have, "**doubts** about such quick progress in the Mahasi Tradition, not **pride**" It appears, many assumed something else. My mistake, I should have been clearer.

**Namo Buddhaya** In the sutta of Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor SN 42.2 The Buddha, to the demand of the actor presenting his wrong view wishing to know what Lord Buddha thought of, answers > Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that. And then proceeds, after the third demand of the actor, on presenting why his beliefs were wrong views. I thus wonder, why wouldn't the Buddha wish to show the way to someone clearly mired in wrong view the right path to practice at his first request ? Why would he ask him not to ask him again ? Especially considering that the actor actually goes and takes refuge for life after his understanding of his wrong views. With metta.

Middle length suttas often include following descriptions of wrong views (MN 44, MN 109, MN131, MN 138): > regards material form as self, or self as possessed of material form, > or material form as in self, or self as in material form. (similar descriptions are given for feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness. To limit the scope, I'd like to focus on the material part for now, and see whether I understand those insightful categories (as I have a feeling that this slips through the words). For the sake of simplicity I interpret: regards material form as self is basically I am a collection of atoms, self as possessed of material form: this is hard for me to understand, maybe as eager to have many houses and fat bank account?, material form as in self: I can be only certain about things that are taking place in my head? self as in material form: hard to understand.

Fairly regularly people ask me to pray for them or their family members. In my understanding, Buddhist don't generally pray for things to be different than what they are. But it never seems appropriate to mention this to a person who might be upset so I just say "of course" and leave it at that. But the truth is, outside of metta for everyone, I don't pray for such things as my neighbor's uncle's knee replacement operation or for my co-worker's daughter to advance in the state championship for soccer. So I'm lying to someone and that's uncomfortable and not a good mind state to be in. First, is my understanding that Buddhist don't generally pray for things to be other than what they are wrong view? And if not, what might be a better way to handle prayer requests?

I read the following on the internet: > If having a little wisdom one would not see any different between > "staying right focused" and "watch closely", but the fool seeks to > accumulate knowledge just for gain and to pave his way downwardly. From the Pali suttas, the word "**anupassi**" is translated as follows: > On that occasion the monk remains **focused** on the body in & of > itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress > with reference to the world. Thanissaro > > on that occasion a bhikkhu abides **contemplating** the body as a body, > ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and > grief for the world. Bodhi > > That’s why at that time a mendicant is meditating by **observing** an > aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and > aversion for the world. Sujato > > a monk lives **contemplating** the body in the body, ardent, clearly > comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world, > covetousness and grief Nyanasatta Thera > > a bhikkhu lives **contemplating** the body in the body, ardent, clearly > comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome, in this > world, covetousness and grief... Soma Thera > > a monk fares along **contemplating** the body in the body, ardent, > clearly conscious (of it), mindful (of it) so as to control the > covetousness and dejection in the world... Horner > > that bhikkhu is considered one who lives **constantly contemplating** body > in bodies, strives to burn up defile­ments, comprehends readily, and > is mindful, in order to abandon all liking and disliking toward the > world... Buddhadasa > > in regard to the body a monk abides **contemplating** the body, diligent, > clearly knowing, and mindful, free from desires and discontent in > regard to the world. Analayo > > **Contemplates** the body in the body with effort, sampajañña and sati, > eradicating covetousness and distress with regard to the world... > Payutto > > These unpleasant feelings are dukkha-vedana and the contemplation of > these feeling is vedananupassana, **contemplation** of feeling... > Mahasi Sayadaw It appears, from the ten translators above, the American Geoffrey DeGraff (also named Bhikkhu Thanissaro) has uniquely translated "anupassi" as "focused". Questions: 1. Is Thanissaro's translation accurate? Is the English word "focused" synonymous with the other translations of "contemplating", "observing", "watching closely", etc? 2. Is there a possible downward path, misguidance &/or confusion in adhering & attaching to Thanissaro's translation? Why? 3. Is there a possible downward path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why? 4. Is there a possible upward & even Noble path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Does atheism in Buddhism mean you let a belief arise that God doesn't exist? Is this a skillful assumption? Why or why not? Was it right view for one to believe that the world wasn't round during the time when it seemed to everyone that the Earth was flat? Was a belief in a flat Earth a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

I've been wondering if it's possible to "progress" towards enlightenment if one has certain set of beliefs which may (or may not) be false (or illogical), but which do not generate conflict between expectations and experience. If we understand dukkha as the result of a dissonance between worldview and experience, one could a priori think that unfalsifiable theories may not generate such dissonances (and therefore, may not contribute to the perpetuation of the conditions of dukkha), because there's no experience that can disprove such notions. For example, if one says that "our true self is formless, without comprehensible features", how could this view be a hindrance in the path? After all, that belief does not seem to necessarily contradicts the essence of anattā, because no khandha can be considered that alleged "true self", and so, non-attachment to khandhas may also be the path to attain that "true self". Being more general: can someone attain Nibbana while still holding some false notions about self or reality? Kind regards!

In the Khemakabhikṣusūtra, 差摩比丘經, _Sermon of the Monk Chà Mó_, T99.29c06 Saṁyuktāgama sūtra #103 (readable in Pāli at [22.89 of the Saṁyuttamikāya](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html))Venerable Chà Mó, who is _Khemakabhikkhu_ in Pāli, gives a sermon to "many elder monks". This has to-do with Ven Chà Mó's not-yet-having-attained severance from pernicious and subtle self-view. To illustrate his quandary and, in so doing, seemingly educating himself to overcome his fetter, he delivers the simile of the flower's scent and the simile of the perfumed rag. The simile of the flower's scent challenges the elders to locate the locus of the scent of a flower. The simile of the perfumed rag speaks of a launderer who hides the filth introduced to a piece of fabric with a skilled application of perfumes. What do these mean? Context: > Like this I heard: > > One day, there were myriad elder monks dwelling in Kauśambī at > Ghoṣitārāma. > > At that time, there was the monk Chà Mó dwelling also in Kauśambī by > the badarikā orchard, his body was increasing in iterations of woe and > sicknesses. > > At that time, there was the monk Tuó Suō keeping watch over the sick. > At that time, Tuó Suō came to the myriad elder monks, bowed to the > myriad elder monks’s feet, then to one side retreated to reside there. > > The myriad elder monks spoke to the monk Tuó Suō: “You, go to the monk > Chà Mó, speak: ‘The myriad elders implore you: Does your body slowly > come to find peace? Do suffering and misery not increase, is it yes?’” > > At that time, the monk Tuó Suō, subject to the myriad elder monks' > dispensation, came to the monk Chà Mó and told to Chà Mó their > tellings, saying: “The myriad elders beseech you, your body slowly > comes to find peace, sufferings and miseries do not increase, yes?” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I am sick and not recovering, I do > not find peace, myriad hardships accumulate without salvation, > tremendous and mighty suffering aches me, I presently suffer and > endure much. It is like the slaughter of a bull, the sharp knife > having cut into the live stomach, to fetch its inner organs, that > bull’s stomach pain is the very same as what I am enduring! My present > stomach pain is greater than that of the bull’s. It is as if two > warriors clutched one weak man, suspended him attached above a fire, > burning his two feet, my present two feet’s burnings are greater than > his.” > > At that time, Tuó Suō returned to the elders, according to what Chà Mó > had said, he told them of his great sickness, entirely explaining to > the elders. > > At that time, the elders returned Tuó Suō, dispatching him to come to > Chà Mó, that he might speak to Chà Mó, to say: “The Bhagavān has > taught these five aggregates of binding, which of these five? The > rūpaskandha, vedanā, saṃjñā, saṃskāra, vijñānaskandha, you, Chà Mó, > can only poorly observe that these five aggregates of binding are > without you, and are nothing to you belonging resolutely.” > > At that time, Tuó Suō subject to the elders taught likewise > thereafter, went forth to speak to Chà Mó, saying: “The elders speak > to you, the Bhagavān speaks of these five aggregates of binding, you > poorly observe they are without you, and are nothing to you belonging > resolutely.” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō, saying: “I, in these five aggregates of > binding, am able to find no me, and they are nothing to me belonging.” > > Tuó Suō returned to address the elders: “The monk Chà Mó spoke, > saying: ‘I, in these five aggregates of binding, observe and find no > me, and they are nothing I own.’” > > The elders again dispatched Tuó Suō to speak to Chà Mó, to say: “You, > in these five aggregates of binding observe and find no me, and they > are nothing I own, thus āsravāḥ are all-ended, and you are an arhat, > resolutely?” > > At that time, Tuó Suō, subject to the elders’s teachings, came closer > to the monk Chà Mó, speaking to Chà Mó, saying: “The monk is able to > thusly observe the five aggregates of binding, thus his āsravāḥ are > all ended, an arhat he is, resolutely?” > > Chà Mó replied to Tuó Suō, saying: “I observe these five aggregates of > binding and find no me, and are nothing I own, but it is not that my > āsravāḥ are all ended and it is not that I am an arhat resolutely.” > > At that time, Tuó Suō left and returned to the elders, addressed the > eldesr: “Chà Mó spoke: ‘I observe these five aggregates of binding and > find no me, and are nothing I own, and yet it is not that my āsravāḥ > are all ended and it is not that I am an arhat resolutely.’” > > At that time, the elderes spoke to Tuó Suō: “You will again return to > speak with Chà Mó: ‘You say: “I observe these five aggregates of > binding and find no me, and are nothing I own, and yet it is not that > my āsravāḥ are all ended [and it is not] that I am an arhat.” The > front and end of your notion are incoherent.’” > > Tuó Suō, subject to the elders’s teachings, went forth to Chà Mó: “You > say: ‘I observe these five aggregates of binding and find no me, > nothing to me belonging, and yet it is not that my āsravāḥ are all > ended and it is not that I am an arhat.’ The front and end of your > notion are incoherent.” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I in these five aggregates of > binding, observe and find no me, and nothing to me belonging, > meanwhile I am not an arhat, I with my pride, my desiring, this > I-making. I am not yet resolute, not yet knowing it, not yet having > severed from it, not yet having vomited it out.” > > Tuó Suō left and returned to the elders, himself speaking to the > elders: “Chà Mó said: ‘I in these five aggregates of binding, observe > and find no me, and nothing to me belonging, meanwhile I am not an > arhat, I with my pride, my desiring, I-making, I am not yet resolute, > not yet knowing, not yet having severed, not yet having vomited. > > The elders once more dispatched Tuó Suō to speak to Chà Mó, to say: > “You speak of having ātman, how to you have ātman? It is that your > form is ātman? It is that ātman is other than your form? Feelings, > thoughts, formations, consciousness, this is "me?" Am I other than > consciousness?” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I do not say that my form is me, nor > am I other than form; nor that feelings, thoughts, formations, > consciousness, are me and mine, nor that I am other than > consciousness, thus in these five aggregates of binding I have pride, > I have desiring, these are I-makings. I am not yet resolute, not yet > knowing, not yet having severed from it, not yet having vomited it > out.” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “What vexation moves you, spurring you > on to directions contrary? You fetch a cane, that I may come, I myself > with my cane, will approach the elders, I beseech you, give me my > cane.” > > At that time, the myriad elders, in the distance, saw Chà Mó with his > staff on his way coming, themselves spread out a seat for him, found a > place to rest his feet, themselves went forth to greet him, to take > his robe and alms bowl, ordering that he promptly sit, exchanging > words to reassure the weary, speaking to Chà Mó saying: > > “You speak of having ātman, how to you have ātman? It is that your > form is ātman? It is that ātman is other than your form? Feelings, > thoughts, formations, consciousness, this is "me?" Am I other than > consciousness?” > > Chà Mó Bhikṣu spoke: > > “It is not that form is me, but it is not that I am other than form; > there is no feeling, thought, formation, or consciousness that is > mine, yet I am not other than consciousness, thus in these five > aggregates of binding I have my pride, I have my desiring, this > I-making. I am not yet resolute, I am not yet knowing, not yet having > severed, not yet having vomited. It is like the flowers. The utpala, > paduma, kumuda, or puṇḍarīka flower's. It is like these flowers' > scent. Is it the roots' scent? Is the scent other than the roots? Is > it the stem's, the leaf's, the whiskers', the fine constituents' or > the coarse constituents' scent? Are the fine constituents other than > the coarse constituents? It is so said, no?" > > The elders responded: "No, resolutely, Chà Mó! It is not the utpala's, > the paduma's, the kumuda's, the puṇḍarīka's roots’ scent, but it is > not that the scent is other than root, so too also it is not the > stem's, the leaf's, the whiskers', the fine constituents', or the > coarse constituents' scent, so too also it is not that the fine > constituents are other than the coarse constituents." > > Chà Mó again asked: "It is what's scent?" > > The elders replied: "It is the flower's." > > Chà Mó again replied: "I, too, am thus so. It is not that my form is > me, yet I am not other than form; there is no feeling, thought, > formation, or consciousness that is resolutely mine, yet I am not > apart from consciousness. So I in these five aggregates of binding see > no me, and they are nothing I own, as such is my pride, my desiring, > I-making, not yet resolute, not yet knowing, not yet having severed, > not yet having vomited. Elders, hear my exposition of analogy. > Worldlings and sages, on account of metaphor attain to understanding. > Such an analogy is this: The wet-nurse has a cloth, she pays the > launderer to wash it, he washes it with all kinds of grey broth, he > rinses until glistening. The filth still remainders lingering in > fumes, there must be applied to it all kinds of incenses & perfumes, > he knows how to cause these fumes to vanish. Like this, one must > inquire into what extent the sage disciple severs from these five > aggregates of binding, with true insight there is no me, and there is > nothing I own, enduring these five aggregates of binding I have pride, > I have desiring, I-making, not yet resolute, not yet knowing, not yet > having severed, not yet having vomited. Afterwards, in these five > aggregates of binding, further investigation is undertook, profound > insight into saṃsāra is attained, this form, this form’s origin, this > form’s cessation, this feeling, thought, formation, consciousness, > this consciousness’s origin, this consciousness’s cessation. And so, > in these five aggregates of binding, with profound insight into > saṃsāra, after that, my pride, my desiring, these I-makings, are all > entirely cast away, this is called penetrating insight into the true > aspect.” > > When Chà Mó spoke the dharma, those elders’s manifold contaminants > became immaculate with their attainment of the pure dharma eye. (Khemakabhikṣusūtra 差摩比丘經 _Sermon of the Monk Chà Mó_ T99.29c06 Saṁyuktāgama sūtra #103)

There are lot of wrong views in other religions but there are even some Buddhist who have wrong views. They don’t believe in rebirth and karma. And they say that they are metaphors. They seems to be clinging to the annihilationist view. According to MN 117 and other suttas, right view is believing that there is the fruits of good and bad karma and this is this world and the next world. The next world is where you will go according to your karma after death. >"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view. > >"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path. > >"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. How do we help them abandon wrong views? If the Buddha was still alive then he could perform some miracles to show that there are more than just what we see with the eye.

I have looked at a list of some wrong-views in Buddhism, and I'm somewhat confused about the meaning of the notion of 'view' [*ditthi*]. **In Buddhism, what does it mean to *hold* a view?** 1) I ask this because I'm unsure what the holding of a view means in this case. Does it mean merely believing the view? Does it mean believing and acting in relation to that view? 2) More so, I'm unsure whether the views listed as wrong are considered as definitive? Or, are there various types of wrong views and the lists consider only the greatest examples? 3) Finally, I wonder what views are in relation to emptiness. I can't help but feel wisdom linked with emptiness would dismantle views altogether. Wouldn't a view, in emptiness, exist only relatively and not in a definite manner? Wouldn't it be impossible to hold a view as true? I'm reminded of Nagarjuna who claims, for example, that those seeing emptiness as a *view* are misguided.

Even as I find peace and contentment in observing the 5 precepts and following along the 8 fold path, I realize I sometimes unintentionally benefit from those who don't live in this manner. For example a friend takes something that wasn't freely given and shares it with me or a nearby person kills the insect flying around that I was trying to ignore. If I have not encouraged people to do such, should I be concerned about their actions or remain concerned only with my own intentions and actions?