As of my understanding, Abidhamma explains the initial thinkings (citta -thought process) and models the final thinking patterns. If someone implements this known patterns in software, wouldn't it be helpful to identify possible abnormal mental conditions of people?

Imagine this scenario: A serial killer is pointing his gun at an innocent person John and wants to kill John. An arahant is near the killer and knows that the killer will kill 5 more innocent people after he kills the innocent person John. The arahant can choose to kill the killer before the killer kills John and the other 5 innocent persons. Would the arahant kill the killer? Would a Buddha kill the killer? If yes, why? If no, why?

Is the taking of a Bodhisattva vow a *requirement*(1) in Mahayana, or is it merely an *option* (or maybe at most a recommendation)? And if it's not a requirement, then for someone who decides not to take it, what if anything is the difference, in terms of the overall aim(2), between the Mahayana approach and the Theravada approach? -- (1) By "requirement" I'm invoking the usual idiomatic use of that word -- i.e. pointing to an action and its consequences. For example, "if you want to build muscle, you are required to lift weights" or "if you want to avoid rebirth in a hell realm you are required to refrain from murdering your parents" (2) Clearly there are differences in practice formats, but I'm thinking more of the end point. In that context, without the vow to continue as a Bodhisattva, Theravada and Mahayana seem like one and the same.

You mentioned that one can enter the substrate consciousness through the shamatha practice of cultivating awareness or during sleep, death and such. Can you realize the substrate consciousness and the luminescence and the radiance of mind through visualization practices such as the one you lead to explore the hearts desire (in motivation to power the retreat talk), through reverence, feelings of gratitude, love, exaltation of breath. I have been listening to your talk remotely now for years and I am so grateful to have this resource to go back to often enough. Thank you.

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?

Slaughtering an animal for meat or a person for wealth is not right livelihood, nor is it right to pay someone else to do so. So far, so good. Modern corporations allow individuals to amass more wealth and power than Genghis Khan while not having to lead the charge from up front. It's easy and direct enough to link Genghis Khan to the invasion of Eurasia, but it's nearly impossible to link a billionaire to a war in Iraq or Congo, though it is common knowledge that the modern economic system since colonial times promotes wars in natural resource rich parts of the world all the time for economic gain. The billionaire beneficiary is often on a yacht thousands of miles away, while ordering the war through middle men, board room decisions, corporate interests, political lobbyists and hedge funds. Such specifically designed to be tenuous connections to the scene of the violence allow the shot caller to even forget there's violence. Kind of like how when people pick up shrink wrapped meat in a supermarket it's a very different sterile experience from going out into the backyard with a cleaver and a cackling hen and returning with bloody hands. Even in his time the Buddha did not criticize wars or say being a king isn't right livelihood. So where's the line in the sand, how many intermediaries does it take to make the wrong right?

> "The practice of precepts helps one to cultivate five ennobling virtues which correspond to each of the precepts. The first is the cultivation of compassion; the second, generosity and non-attachment; the third, contentment; the fourth truthfulness; and the fifth, mindfulness and clarity of the mind." I found this quote with a reference to *The Five Precepts and the Five Ennoblers (pañcasīla-pañcadhamma)* by Prince Vajirañāṇavarorasa -- but I can't locate the text anywhere or find anything about it. Can any one shed some light on this?

I am wondering if this website , and in particular, the guided audio meditations, are in line with the actual teaching of the 32 parts of the body meditation. I don't know much about it, so I thought I'd get a second opinion here, and also I thought that provided this is a good resource, I would at the same time share it with you all :)

What Buddism teaches about Spiritism , especially the Kardecist Spiritualism Doctrine (link above)? Is it wrong to try to communicate with the ghosts and to learn from spirits?

I am a huge proponent of scientific skepticism, rationalism and critical thinking. As a former Christian, I enjoy watching debates and more recently, discussions on YouTube. I like the debate format because it allows for the use of cross-examination, which is a real art in my opinion; especially as demonstrated in the masterful use of rhetoric by say, the late Christopher Hitchens. Likewise, I enjoy a format geared more toward discussion as it allows me to truly "step inside the head" as it were, of people who I disagree with on a fundamental level and if the conversation is good, to grasp the concepts from angles that may never have occurred to me. As an example of the difference between the two, let me recommend that you watch two videos. The first one being the debate between Sam Harris and noted Christian apologist, William Lane Craig that took place at Notre Dame. https://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg Contrast that one with Craig's performance in any of the three videos that were filmed in Australia, mainly in the discussion format with physicist Lawrence Krauss. https://youtu.be/-b8t70_c8eE https://youtu.be/V82uGzgoajI https://youtu.be/7xcgjtps5ks Now, honesty dictates that I admit my bias going into these. It is that I suspect that the natural world is all there is and that my experience after I die will probably be much like it was before I was born. However, the aforementioned should in no way be taken as a discounting or criticism of personal experience, i.e. of the numinous or transcendent. I think that people have a basic right to believe whatever they want. What they don't get to have though is automatic immunity from criticism about things they tell others as matters of fact, and **this is where my question begins...** Where are the **Buddhists engaging in either debate or discussion** wherein they are asked simple and direct questions about their epistemology? Debates with the form > "So you believe in and espouse **the doctrine of rebirth**? That's great, but **how do you know it's true**?" or > "By what method of inquiry did you come to this knowledge?" and, "Why is that method of determining what is true equally as or more valid than traditional western methodology?" The only person I know about who has been willing to attempt this, to his credit, has been Ven. Brahmali in both [debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuHi9Zpx7zo) and discussion with Stephen Batchelor. I just wish that more people for whom I have a lot of respect due to their accessible teaching, like Ajahn Brahm and Mattieu Ricard, would follow suit. **Recommendations to videos and books are most welcome**.

Allow me to take you on a little detour through Heidegger? He claims that "my death" is inalienably mine: that no one can die my death for me. I think this means that "my death" never arrives... That may sound weird, but if we view death as a complete extinction of the "person" or whatever makes them up, then the empirical instant that death begins necessarily goes unnoticed - as in I can have no cognition of "my death" or by proxy the time it occurs. **i.e.** It cannot be said that the event of my death is in any way only empircally real for me (because such a quality would never arrive): but who else dies for me? Which of course *isn't very Buddhist*... But it does make me wonder if a similar thing can be said about nirvanic extinction? Or is the true self of a Buddha his or her nirvana, such that it can be said the Buddha is no more, just not that he or she reached it?

In his philosophy, Nagarjuna uses the Pratityasamutpada to prove, that everything is empty and without reality. In the end, however he proves not only the emptiness of that very Pratityasamutpada but he also somehow leaves the law (of dependent arising) intact and working. Does anyone understand his point, especially in what concerns Pratityasamutpada?

In multiple Jataka stories, the Buddha tells of his different past lives, multiple of which occurred under King Brahmadatta. Am I missing something here? How is it that the Buddha was living multiple past lives, all during the lifetime of one king? for example : http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/j1010.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/j1008.htm

What is the proper name for the Buddha's earliest followers such as Ananda and Sariputta - the ones that followed the Buddha during his lifetime. Would the term be bhikkhu and bhikkhuni or does this only apply to settled monastics?

I can't help myself not to find Buddhism utopic. A concept that can only exist for a small group of people. What is the long term plan of the Buddhism? How would Buddhist monks organize countries, world? e. g.: Imagine you got 95% Buddhist countries, but ISIS pops up, how would Buddhist countries react, given that non-violence is preached?

What is good and bad according to Buddhism? Is there good and bad? What is it's cause? What defines good and bad? Why some people think "this same X is bad" and others think "this same X is good"? What's the cause of this difference in thinking "this same X is bad" and "this same X is good"? Are there any suttas talking about all this?

I've read that one understanding of Bodhisattvas is that they postpone their enlightenment until all sentient beings have entered Nirvana? That's always struck me as odd. Why would this be necessary? Surely the Buddha was enlightened and he worked for the benefit of all beings too. Or is that an incorrect understanding of what a Bodhisattva is?

Does any Mahayana school teach that I am atman, the Self of buddha nature? Assuming a resounding "no", may I please ask, if atman is "like" anything, or is it more like the eventual non existence, annihilation, of the empirical self, like death is for philosophically enlightened atheists? It is not true that qualia are substances, not only in Western philosophy, but in Buddhism too, because otherwise the skandhas, being insubstantial, would not be like anything! Perhaps that question is unanswerable, because I can't see any alternative to those possibilities !

What are the teachings from Pali canon on negotiation in a business or social context? I have read tips such as not to make a false negative attitude on someone's property and acquire it. It is a form of stealing. Or sometimes the buyer will make techniques not to pay the real value. It is also a form of stealing according to Buddhist texts. So my concern is on how to negotiate on things/price such that all the parties involved get happy. I will be really grateful for an answer with some references from Pali Canon or from the teachings of a Buddhist scholar. Thanks in advance.

When starting a more in-depth study of the Dharma from a Mahayana and Vajrayana perspective, what are the core (3 most recommended) Sutras (or texts), and the reasons why they are considered important, to have on your reading list in each of those traditions?