What is appropriate usage of medicines that are intoxicating? I know that cannabis has been used for pain relief but if the use of the cannabis is intoxicating then what is the right view of what is appropriate regarding the use of the cannabis as a medicine? Are there any suttas which seem like they might be helpful in answering this question?

The earlier aspects that now seem less relevant imo: > *---How can it be known that ignorance won't return/re-arise and why won't it return/re-arise if there is no consciousness after death? > ---From what I remember seeing according to the linear view of the links of dependent origination ignorance is the cause of fabrications > and fabrications are the cause of consciousness. > ---It seems to me that consciousness is required for this type of knowledge, so when an arahant dies how can there be knowing and thus > certainty that ignorance won't reform/re-arise after death if there > isn't even consciousness?* **The aspects below that I currently think are more relevant:** Is it considered as being abhiññā i.e "direct knowledge" that occurs before the arahant dies? How does one know that this abhiññā is completely true? It seems to me that omniscience is required. "Logically-speaking" doesn't truly knowing something like that require omniscience to verify that one isn't deceiving oneself?

Are my painful feelings, that I feel now, result of my past kamma (I have for a long period felt extremely painful feelings which I couldn't stop and therefore I am helpless and trapped by them)? Or is it something I am generating by doing something with free will in the present moment, that I am still not aware of that I can stop? Because it seems like I have no way chance against painful feelings and they are controlling me. It seems like it's something there whether I like it or not, it is there autonomous. I am confused, and I am not in control over my feelings, and feeling trapped and helpless to them, because I can't solve them, they feel like a must for me with no way out. Is this kamma what Buddhism talks about, and does this mean I can't solve this? I read that Sankhara are subconscious tendencies. Is that the same as my feelings that keep me trapped? I really want clear understanding what my situation is, and what is my possibility. Will I have to experience this painful feeling the rest of my life? Also is kamma and Sankhara the same thing that keeps me trapped? If not what is the difference? I really need to understand that. Thank you for reading this post.

I.e Mr A and Mr B are virtually identical (only their names, positions in space etc. are different). Mr A intends (x) and does x Mr A receives y Mr B intends (x) and does x Mr B receives z (I imagine that y and z are similar.)

Would you say that it is appropriate for a monk to give advice to the laity in how to live life/dealing with obstacles? Now don't get me wrong, but monks certainly have "safer" environments. They are much less exposed to stimulating sensory input as well as life problems. I am by nature quite skeptical and cannot really take a monk serious if he gives tips and at the same time does not follow these tips (or rather that lifestyle). How can a monk give relationship advice? Sure, the Dhamma gives such, but then it's just intellectual knowledge given by a monk, but that advice has not been practised by him. I think the whole "problem" starts with titles like "venerable" or the admiration of monks/nuns. Again, don't get me wrong, seeing in them a role model and paying homage to them because they delivered proper dhamma is appropriate, but one should always keep in mind that they are UNIQUE, COMPLEX (in that they think, feel and do good, bad and neutral things) and FALLIBLE. Anyone made same experiences? Advice? Opinions?

Would a wise person avoide situations where other could perform lot of demerits? Or different asked: Would a wise person go out only if meritorious reactions are suspected? What do you think, or know about the Buddhas view on such? *(Note that this has been not asked for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment that binds here in this world, but as means of release)*

Whenever there is a problem we socialize. When we are sick we go to a doctor. When we are hungry we go to a cook. When we want to laugh we go to a movie. My question is : are these social interactions always helpful in solving our problems ? Is "if problem then socialize with right people" formula always helpful ?

I often hear people make use of the defence “that’s not my problem”. Is this a delusion in the form of rejecting no-self and denying or not seeing interdependence? Or are these people right and should we remain equanimous about other people’s problems? Should we be careful not to assume other people want the best for us so we take more responsibility in solving our own problems?

Suppose I tell a lie in order to protect others or to protect myself; is it still considered to be 'unwholesome'? Or let's take the common example of a person who isn't really moral; is it okay to inform friends/colleagues of this aspects, or is it unkind to the person?

Since the mapping of Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS) began about ten years ago, around 500 new subsatances has been discovered. This is a somewhat different situation than what was the case 2500 years ago. Some NPS are not illegal, and even it they are defined as pshychoactive they're not intoxicating but more like caffein ("upper") or melatonin (for sleep) or valerian (calming). What defines - in the different traditions - whether taking an NPS is against the five precepts or not? Is it the intention with which you take the substance? Is it the effect? Neurobiological damage? Physical damage? Frequency? Does legal status come in to the picture? Is this something one should take directly with the teacher? Or something you can define according to your own conscience?

In several answers on this site, judging others as judge or jury is looked upon unfavourably, for both lay people and monks. It is often said that the one who passes a guilty or innocent verdict, would carry some karmic consequences. However, the following quote from the Dhammapada seems to condone the act of judging others. Is this the right interpretation of these Dhammapada verses or is there another interpretation? Maybe it's just a metaphor? If so, a metaphor for what? On the other hand, if this is the correct interpretation, then could these verses be used to endorse the participation of lay Buddhists as judge or jury? Dhammapada 256-257 as translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: > To pass judgment hurriedly > doesn't mean you're a judge. > The wise one, weighing both > the right judgment & wrong, > **judges others** impartially — > unhurriedly, in line with the Dhamma, > guarding the Dhamma, > guarded by Dhamma, > intelligent: > he's called a judge. Dhammapada 256-257 as translated by Acharya Buddharakkhita: > 256. Not by passing arbitrary judgments does a man become just; a wise man is he who investigates both right and wrong. > > 257. He who does not **judge others** arbitrarily, but passes judgment impartially according to the truth, that sagacious man is a guardian > of law and is called just.

Is it possible for a monk to be called for jury duty in the U.S.A.? If so, does the Buddhist religion prevent them from taking part int he judicial process, as it involves passing judgment on others? Furthermore, would it be considered an offense for a lay person to be a member of a jury that had to decide on a death penalty case?

I am exploring non duality. I tend to believe it's true but I'm not sure if I accept the transcendent element. Is it possible that this awareness is simply a deeper level of the mind ? That it's not part of God or a higher power. Not eternal?

What all are the important books, that are part of Buddhism, other than Dhammapada?

Has anyone seen any meditation master demonstrating abhinna or supernatural powers stated in various suttas and in Visuddhi Magga? I know, most will suggest me to keep practicing meditation to see or experience it by myself. But I would like to hear from modern day people about their practical experiences, not from the suttas and texts. PS: It's not about starting a debate. Basically it's just yes/no answer based on practical experiences. I would love to hear it.

From a scriptural point of view, Buddha did not forbid the consumption of meat, let alone animal products etc., but what we do know is that 'Right Livelihood' tells us to not work as a butcher. Put in modern context, do Buddhist practitioners have a moral responsibility to become vegan? Can abuse, exploitation, commodification, torturing & unnecessary killing of sentient animals ever be morally justified in our modern day & age, where plenty of alternatives are readily available? Once we know about the abattoir's conditions around the world, we are informed & we thereby have to take kammic responsibility, otherwise we will partake in the deaths of trillion animals, due to our demand for animal products.

In this video, a monk tried to draw a distinction between "mythology" and "history facts" ... [Ajahn Sujato - Buddhist Mythology - The Sacred and the Profane - Part 3](https://youtu.be/QgSj6Wa9vPA) ... saying that "Mythology" just has a community (identification) purpose. Yet my person's thought was, "and how is that different to 'factual' history (aside that it faster changes)?" How can "mythology" ([Anussava](https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?page=45)) , and "history" (perhaps thought as [Itivea](https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?page=119)?) , be seriously distinguished, if possible? And how should the past be seen, grasped, in accordance with the path, practice? What kind of mythology, history, and *anussati* (bringing into present) is conductive for one's way, toward long-time happiness and beyond? *(Note that this is not asked for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for good undertakings toward release from this wheel)*

There are lots of Koans on the internet, but I am not sure if there is some sort of process that a Koan must go through, or if there is some sort of list of Koans that are taught and that new ones are not added. Meaning, if a Koan is just made up on the spot by some random person, and the Koan is unrelated to the core principals of Zazen, I presume it wouldn't be taught by a Japanese Zen master. Which leads me to believe that there are some sort of "canon" of Koans.

I've seen in plenty of discussions and threads that there are some criteria to keep in mind while trying to separate the "real Dhamma" from the "fake" one. For example, in [AN 11:13](https://suttacentral.net/an11.13/en/sujato) there is a fragment which tell us that: >The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very life, **immediately effective**, inviting inspection, relevant, so that **sensible people can know it for themselves**. A few questions: 1) When differentiating between teachings, should we consider all these quatities at the same time? Or should we pick one over the others? 2) If some teaching is not inmediately effective, but the results (as described in the suttas) are seen after a long, dedicated practice, should we discard that teaching? 3) If a practicant is not able to perceive something described in the suttas inmediately, should we discard such suttas a priori, or should he/she consider the possibility of not being "sensible" enough (i.e. not having reached the minimum level of spiritual maturity for perceiving such X aspect of the Teaching)? 4) How can we know if some alleged result is not perceived due to my own current lack of experience, or if it's because the teaching is false? Thanks in advance for your time and patience. Kind regards!

I would like to know if there exist a PDF version of Tripitaka which is compatible with an eBook reader(Kindle, Kobo alike)?