People with wrong view often try to practice the Noble path for whatever purpose, but is it actually possible or doesn't it require stream entry first? >"In a person of wrong view, wrong resolve comes into being. In a person of wrong resolve, wrong speech. In a person of wrong speech, wrong action. In a person of wrong action, wrong livelihood. In a person of wrong livelihood, wrong effort. In a person of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness. In a person of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration. In a person of wrong concentration, wrong knowledge. In a person of wrong knowledge, wrong release. > >"This is how from wrongness comes failure, not success." > >— [AN 10.103](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/index_en.html) *[Note, this question is not thought to keep one there where he/she is bond, for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism, but to offer release and go beyond]*

It might be the case that someone uses to engage into entertaining with Dhamma reads and talks in his working time, or uses resources of other for such, yet not really given, just like one may chat or do whatever private while in the office. What might be the effects of such deeds? Would it be possible to get long term benefit from doing so? Possible to gain good while thinking, acting, like a thief? *[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism or other entertaining that keeps one caught but for liberation.]*

If people, maintaining a Buddhist identity, are good, they do whatever sacrifices of which they expect benefit or where they feel touched. Now, when a person gives outside the Savaka-Sangha, outside the Noble Ones, can he/she be called either, faith-, dhamma-follower or even Sotapanna? Would he/she be regarded as being ready and worthy to be taught by wise? *(Note, this is not given for exchange, trade, stacks or entertainment for bounds but to escape dry lands and go beyond)*

Please someone clarify: 1. Does Buddhism believe in rebirth? 2. There is an general belief in almost all religions that our good and bad will be carry forwarded to next and next to next generation and all, what does Buddhism say about that? 3. Almost all religions says give a part of money to god and that will be honoured after death. What is Buddhism's stand on that? 4. In many religions, if the leaders (monk, sadhu or what ever may be.. ) do something wrong other monks says that they will be punished after death by god,but they keep on doing it. If god punished him instantly many will be saved. But this is not happening. How does Buddhism look at this?

Someone, possible thought it might be compassionate, stated: >Also (next to compassion), when you spread loving kindness, do NOT spread it to yourself. No where in any discourse does the Buddha says to spread loving kindness to your self. All the places when Buddha talks about metta, he says to spread loving kindness to all beings in each directions. Possible to have real compassion or/and goodwill, not to speak about mudita and upekkha, without having one self floated with it. So is this true or the very base not traced? Possible Nihilist-Trap? Possible that certain Kings at Buddhas times have been wiser and more compassionate as intellectuals may ever be? Possible not seen the qualities of Ariyasāvakas and thought in common terms? *[Note: this question is one of compassion and not thought for trade, exchange, stackes, Buddh-ism, or whatever binds to the low.]*

Surely a convention-philosophy conflicting question: One sad "There's no owner for this Dhamma." Can this be related to the Buddhas words as they are known from the Sublime Canon, or is it told different, or both, or neither? If there is an owner of the Dhamma, what makes them rightly recognized as such? *[Note: This question is not given for trade, exchange or whatever wordily gain and bondage]*

Did the Lord Buddha say anything about magic and fortune telling? I just want to know because in this modern world everyone is following some astrology (Fortune tellers). People believe what ever these people say. media also giving high priority to them.

Failue, disappeared, they say: "Right time, right time. It wasn't the proper time!", but: What's the right time to ask? What's the right time to advise? What's the right time to speak? What's the right time to stay silent? What's the [right time for delay](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23083/11235) ? May one answer when ever thought being the right time. *[Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or whatever binds to this wheel but for gaining release from it.]*

Yes I have meditated and I have searched the Internet this question before landing here, what I describe below is a mixture of what I have read of what one should do during meditation and what actually happens when I actually meditate. Most of the articles I have found say that try to keep focus but here I want to ask is what do I focus upon ? My problems, my desires or just how do we keep focus without a subject to feed upon ? And while meditating I have found my thoughts wander away and keep reminding myself by repeating mentally "no I am meditating, no I am meditating". Is that the right method ? but the biggest question is when we say focus(in any other field apart from meditation) we understand it in general context as to improve our performance or invest ourselves more in that field but what does it mean in meditation, is it repeating a thought continuously in our head or something else ? While some other articles say watch the thoughts as they occur , I mean okay I could watch the thoughts that occur during a meditation session but then doesn't that seem a little contradictory ? You are producing the thoughts and then you are seeing that occur so then actually we could guide our thoughts then, why does it then say stay and observe ? I know above I have asked my questions in a hodgepodge manner so let me sum it up succinctly: - **What are we supposed to think during meditation or we do not need to think at all ?** - **Generally do we set timers for meditation sessions or do we get an intuitive feel that I can't focus or meditate any more for today ?**

In many religions it is common to say: "Have faith in God" or Jesus or Allah... In Buddhism we believe in Kamma, meaning that what happens to us is due to our past actions and it is usually not (or never) influenced by an external being. (It can change from school to school, some may pray and ask for things) So if there is something I want, something I judge important, should I have faith that it will come true? Or should I just do what I think is right and forget about it? What is the best way for a Buddhist to act in this situation? PS: Please ignore the fact that I want something, I know this could be questioned in Buddhism as the wrong way to happiness, but that would be a different question :)

If it's wrong view to say, "I am" then why isn't it also wrong view to say, "there is" since they both point to the same verb, "to be?" It is said that there are Four Noble Truths. Yet, somehow, these conditioned phenomena of words and mental formations (i.e. "truth" is merely a concept) are not subject to cessation. All conditioned phenomena arise and cease, except for the "magical" mind stream that, somehow, from beginningless time manages to avoid cessation with the exception of its eternal annihilation at parinibbana (i.e., the extinction of all subjective experience which is said to be the "highest happiness"). If the mind stream is "just a process, not a person," then the same should be true of all phenomena, yet all conditioned phenomena are subject to cessation whilst the mind stream somehow dodges this immutable law until the manual intervention of practicing the path finally pushes this naughty rebel of conditioned phenomena into the annihilation machine of parinibbana. I'm just trying to better understand the logic of this. I have some doubts and thus push hard on certain issues that don't make sense to me. Personally, I don't need the Buddha to be 100% correct about everything to find value in his teachings. However, I'm not even claiming that something is correct or incorrect, only that I have doubt, yet I still find value in many of the teachings.

Considering the story we know about the life of Buddha as Siddhartha and also considering that Yesodhara was Buddha's partner in His many previous lives, can we say that Yesodhara was somehow instrumental in Siddhartha becoming a Buddha? OR With or without Her being in His life He would have made it? (Her pervious life with Buddha is in wiki article and here .) *I know this question is as such irrelevant to practice but I am trying to get around this idea called '**soul-mates**' which is in pop-media.*

Buddhism has anti-natalist overtones according to the writings of Hari Singh Gour below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism > Buddha states his propositions in the pedantic style of his age. He throws them into a form of sorites; but, as such, it is logically faulty and all he wishes to convey is this: Oblivious of the suffering to which life is subject, man begets children, and is thus the cause of old age and death. If he would only realize what suffering he would add to by his act, he would desist from the procreation of children; and so stop the operation of old age and death. How does this view of the Buddha reconcile with the fact that the Buddha had a son named Rahul?

Alan Watts told *The Story of the Chinese Farmer *, which is also sometimes found under the title *Maybe*. It appears that he told this story sometime between 1960-1969, since it was published in Watts, A. (2011). *Eastern wisdom, modern life: Collected talks: 1960-1969*. New World Library. **Is there any history of this story before Watts?** Is there a similar story that it might have been based upon? On the other hand, has some scholar researched this question and concluded that Watts wrote it himself?

I believe that I remember once reading that the Buddha abandoned excessive meditation. Is this true?

To alleviate someone from suffering, Buddhism teaches one to practice [mettā](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett%C4%81) [karuṇā](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karu%E1%B9%87%C4%81) . But it seems to me that to thinking good about someone and wish them the best, we need to have a better version of the suffered person, so that we can disagree with their current version. If we don't have that image, then we wouldn't say the suffered person is suffered at the beginning. Thus, it seems correct to say that in order to practice metta and karuna, we need to have an attachment? Since this attachment is necessary, then I think it's fine to have? For example I ask this question, thus I have some attachment to it, and that's fine. I think this is related to the conventional truth and absolute truth. So is it correct the in order to practice metta and karuna, we need to have an attachment to begin with? Edit: One can simply say that the better version of that person is just a ideal fabrication of them (because they are not actually like that), or just the good side of them that they always have but not shown yet. In either case, I think it's necessary to [assume good faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence) . Would that assumption be an attachment?
Related: • [Is radiating loving kindness increase attachment?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/11859/13525) • [How to view people with metta and karuna?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/24615/13525) • [Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/33370/13525)

I am indian. You are Americans . Our identity divide human beings? I am hindu. You are muslim. Our identity divide human beings? I am buddhist monk. I am ordinary human. I am hindu. I am muslim. Hindu hates Muslim beacuse i am hindu . Muslim hate hindu beacuse you are muslim. Indian hate pakistan beacuse I am indian. Pakistan hate indian beacuse he is pakistan. Every one carry identity. Identity create conflict Conflict create war

Does a Buddha or arahant like food and is mindful of that liking at all times or does liking just no longer arise? Does the Buddha like or dislike at the heart level and yet sees the heart objectively? Related to this question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/35349/what-is-the-basis

I have thought about this since a long time, and now I am ready for renunciation, accept teachings and practise Buddhism in a monastery. I told my parents about these future plans. They said they were disappointed in me & that I was running away from my responsibilities & will ruin their and my life if I follow this path. Since they've made me the person I am today, I feel the need to ask for permission before I leave. They won't allow me. What would be the best way to solve this, maybe a middle path?

I heard a few times the notion that in meditation one must focus on the sensations of breathing (which seems to make sense to me) but not the *idea* of the breath. What would be the 'idea' of the breath? Is there a single thought or mental entity one could focus on? I feel like thoughts change and follow one another quickly, I don't understand how one could try to meditate on the 'idea' of the breath. **What does such an idea refer to?**