Sometimes during everyday conversation, you can notice based on someone's subtle feedback, that they may be misinterpreting something you are telling them. For the sake of the question, please suspend doubt in the premise itself: This literal truth causes confusion and ignorance for them, but our hypothetical lie communicates the truth effectively and even helps gently erode away the delusions they suffer from. (Because our words were exactly what they needed to hear, so that when their delusions distort their understanding, it lands on the truth.) Is this really a lie, or is it perfect language? (Is it a corrupted compromise between them?) --- EDIT: More specifically, is it breaking the precept of false speech? > I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech. *Is a lie still false if it communicates the truth?*

When someone needs my help, I try to answer their questions as best as I can. Sometimes, the questions make no sense (from my perspective) and from there I struggle. For some things, the person is just too far away to get it. Sometimes I come up with great metaphors, simple explanations for complex situations, but unfortunately this doesn't always happen. What am I supposed to do when it does not happen, when I know what to reply, but that would be too much for the person to understand? Should I just ignore them?

If we are caught in the great web of desire and aversion, and are roiling in Samsara, helpful or well meaning advise (to let go, to be in the moment, to inspect the emptiness of reality, to not indulge in distractions, to not follow emotions blindly) may fall on deaf ears. Sometimes when the Buddha encountered such people, he seemed to have a knack to lead them to realization of the drawbacks of Samsara. Ex. Stories of Kisa Gotami or Patacara (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.10.01.than.html) Other times, he wasn't so successful in making others happy, as with the case of his father who was very aggrieved about losing a successor, or monks in his order who plotted against him or the sangha. Sometimes even expulsion didn't seem to help. In fact, Buddha initially had reservations about teaching the Dhamma at all - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html It is unclear whether it was his wise words, or his enlightened mindful compassionate energy presence or the receptiveness of the listener that led some lucky ones to this realization. In any case, lacking the wisdom of the Buddha, we may alienate those we seek to help by explaining the suffering of Samsara when they expect conventional help. In these situations, would it be wise for a Buddhist to offer everyday immediate *samsaric* help, like, taking someone out to a movie or to a drink to forget their pain (obviously only works in suffering of a lower intensity than losing your family to death)? Or, would it harm the Buddhist himself, by weakening his/her belief in Dhamma? i.e. implying Dhamma isn't always the best cure Which is more compassionate? Or, what would an aspiring Bodhisattva do?

How do Mayahana and Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of Maiterya's prophecy? I know for a fact that some e.g. son masters claimed to have achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi, and that some Vajrayana monks have taught Buddhahood in this very body. But if Maitreya is the *next* Buddha, how can that be, given he's still not arrived, and is in the tusita heaven? Are there different kinds of perfect enlightenment, and the above realisations are in some way lesser (or more?) than Maiterya's?

waking up to the ultimate truth of reality and that anyone can do like him. I feel like I'm living in the matrix. but i'm not so sure if waking up is possible.

In the article entitled A Secular Evaluation of Rebirth , Doug Smith, of the Secular Buddhist Association , wrote: > It is for reasons such as these that any contemporary, scientifically > informed Buddhist practice should reject belief in rebirth and its > associated kammic causation. The Path is rich enough without them. It appears that many Secular Buddhists do not accept rebirth, while almost all other Buddhists do. In the essay entitled Dhamma Without Rebirth? , well-known Tripitaka translator and scholar Ven. Bodhi conveyed the mainstream view of the Buddhist world: > If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go > directly to our sources, **we come upon the indisputable fact that the > Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his > teaching**. Viewed in their totality, the Buddha's discourses show us > that far from being a mere concession to the outlook prevalent in his > time or an Asiatic cultural contrivance, the doctrine of rebirth has > tremendous implications for the entire course of Dhamma practice, > affecting both the aim with which the practice is taken up and the > motivation with which it is followed through to completion. If someone considers himself a Buddhist, we can assume that he accepts the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path . I guess this should apply to Secular Buddhists as well. If there is no such thing as rebirth (or continuation of the stream of consciousness or mind after death, in a new life), then there is no need to end suffering by ending craving (third noble truth), through following the Noble Eightfold Path (fourth noble truth). Instead, it's much easier to commit suicide, or simply wait for natural death. **After all, if there is no rebirth, then at death, all suffering would end anyway, right?** So, based on this, how do Secular Buddhists justify their acceptance of the Four Noble Truths and the Buddha's teachings in general, if they reject rebirth? How would the Four Noble Truths and Nibbana have any meaning or usefulness for them? Why would they choose to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, if death is a much simpler way to end suffering?

In Thailand, there was a very famous monk who was chosen to represent Thailand in 1954 at the 6th Buddhist council in Burma who did not believe in rebirth (and who many Thai *puthujjana* considered to be a heretic & sutta-cutter). His life ended by natural causes at 87 years old. A certain Sangharaga (Supreme Patriarch) who taught 'heaven & hell' where cultural beliefs that represent 'ancient geography' lived for 100 years, as follows: > *"As we are so familiar, in religious sphere, the concept of heaven and hell is a very prominent belief. In many cases, it becomes the > goal of religious practice itself. On this very subject, His Holiness > critically analyses that the very concept and belief of heaven and > hell in Buddhism is a cultural influence of indigenous culture and > belief. He states: (I quote) ‘the subject of cosmology appeared in > Buddhism is clearly can be seen that it is not ‘Buddhist teaching’ at > all but an ancient geography. The concept and belief about it was > included in Buddhist Canon merely because of strong influence of > popular belief of the time. Later Commentaries further explain about > heaven and hell in a greater detail distant itself from the original > teaching of the Buddha. If Buddhism teaches such belief on heaven and > hell it would not be Buddhism at all but an ancient geography. Buddha > wouldn’t be the Buddha who delivered the Noble Truth and ‘timeless’ > message for mankind.’ (p. 1) (end of the quote) He then shows in his > teaching that the concept of heaven and hell in Buddhism are in fact > symbolic, representing the quality of mind and spirituality instead. > One can be in heaven and hell in this very earth and life. No need to > wait until one dies..."* > >View on Heaven and Hell of Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara, Supreme Patriarch of Thai Buddhism. These monks with secular views lived to & died from old age. Why do secular Buddhists not commit suicide?

Many of us spend at least a couple of hours per day on public transport like bus, train or underground (for me it is around 2.5 hours). How could we use that time to develop right mindfulness?

Every book says that Siddhartha Gautama achieved Nirvana and then became Gautama Buddha. But now that I have realized that all phenomenon are nonself , it becomes imperative for me to ask : did Siddhartha Gautama achieve Nirvana? NOTE: It is not a duplicate of question "who or what achieves enlightenment?" because I am asking the question in relation to only and only Siddhartha Gautama. In the question "who or what achieves enlightenment?" Siddhartha Gautama is not mentioned and nobody answers for it.

While I find some buddhist ideas intriguing - mainly using meditation to find insights in oneself - I'm also quite irritated, why so many traditions are so full of dogma, i.e. things you just have to believe or do. It's exactly this way of thinking which always bugged me with religions. Buddhism (at least in it's "westernized" form) seemed to be different: Don't believe in anything except the insights you got from your own meditation practice. At least I thought, that this was one of the core teachings of Buddha. So why is it, that most established traditions treat Buddha almost like a god, which you have to worship or errect statues for? Or put another way: Would he be happy if he would see what became of his teachings today, especially in regard to the personality cult? The only answer I could come up with is: People can't let go of gods. But isn't this foiling the main idea that the historical Gautama was teaching?

All phenomenon are nonself then who achieves the Nirvana?

Monks are bald because as I read somewhere that when person is bald he looks unattractive and so no one else attract towards it. So what are other benefits to being bald either for monks or layman?

You can read that shastra here . I'm quite fond of it, though I don't have my own meditation practice. If I had to narrow the question down, I'd ask if it contains different practices, of different sentient beings. Not absolutely sure that makes sense, though. I like the idea of it substituting for 'heaven' on those grounds, of others.

Recently I got to know about '**Non-Self**' or **Anatta** term but online material was not comprehendible. Below are my questions:
1) Can anyone explain it in simple terms with example?
2) If there's no permanent self or soul then how did Buddha HIMSELF saw his previous lives in various forms, which would be impossible without a permanent soul. In the case of temporary soul it would have been only limited to current life.
3) What were the cases/scenarios from which Buddha made the '**Non-Self**' conclusion?
4) How can I cross verify this claim. I mean experience this (as Buddha said believe on your own experience & then follow & not because I said it.)

Many of us have been trying hard to understand the Dhamma which essentially teaches impermanence,unsatisfactoriness & **nonself**. Buddha famously did not give answer to Vacchagotta's direct question "Is there a self ?" However Buddha definitely said that "all phenomenon are **nonself**". Suppose I ask you : Do you experience presence of self now? What would be the honest reply?

Can people with poor mental health not just benefit from meditation, but realize its goals?

I understand feelings as feeling happy, sad, elated, down - more like an emotion. Sensations I understand as hot, cold, tingly, numb, all kinds of body pains or pleasant sensations in the body. Which ones does the Buddha refers to in the Suttas? I believe they are the sensations in the body and not feelings. For example is I see a beautiful woman, eye and form, contact -> pleasant sensation in the abdomen -> craving(lust) -> clinging -> becoming and at this stage feeling happy with the beautiful woman form and then a bit sad when I dont see her and prompted by craving I start looking for another beautiful form to cling to and then happy, sad, repeating the cycle again and again. In my understanding sensations are vedana and not feelings.

I'm so over life. I'm nearly 50 and I feel worn down by everything. The struggle to make sense of it, to find purpose and meaning, to make lasting friendships, to feel I belong somewhere, to survive in a capitalist society that puts money first and pits people against one another. The vacuous shallow emptiness of it all. To witness the awful violence and destruction that goes on relentlessly everyday.The heartbreak of it all and my own personal heartbreak of a very long relationship breaking down and changing and feeling unable to move on from it like a drug addiction.The conflicting, confusing feelings of both hating and loving ones parents for the hurt they caused and the lack of remorse they feel. The battle with my own dark side and the twisted comfort of lashing out and causing more chaos and hurt for others because of my own pain. I just want to go to sleep and never wake up. It feels like a nice option. I've thought about going to Mexico and getting some nambutal, going to a hotel room and ingesting it.

Can someone please explain to me in clear laymans terms exactly the steps to working with and removing sankharas because I think I have a lot. I have been meditating for 6 years and basically just using the breath as my anchor. When my mind wonders I note thinking thinking or seeing seeing etc then I come back to the breath. I'm not sure am I meant to do anything else? I don't really have any strong emotion arise in formal practice. It only happens in my daily life. To rewire the brain and remove sankharas am I meant to just notice sensation and not react? So someone cuts in front of me on the road and I feel a strong sensation of anger begin to arise. So I just watch it and know that it's anicca, Dukha , Annatta? And wait for it to pass? I must do this with all sensory inputs when I feel triggered? And then sankharas will be removed eventually? Is this correct?

According to the book [The Tao of Zen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Zen) , Zen/Chan is esentially a form of Taoism. This makes sense to me, as it's hard to understand what is the common ground between the relative simplicity of Zen and the baroque belief systems of the other Mahayana traditions. However, this is not a predominant opinion about the origins of Zen. I understand that it is generally believed that Zen is a branch of Buddhism, with some Taoist influences. What are the arguments that support this opinion? Has anybody provided counter-arguments to the ones presented in *The Tao of Zen*?