Would it be advisable to form a political party based on the Dhamma? This would, of course, not mean that all people would have to become Buddhist, but just let their nation be governed by Buddhist principles. The current ideologies seems to be either highly confused and clueless, intentionally abusive or just greedy. To benefit the people over the politicians, I was thinking that a Buddhist party could help the world to become more peace and make more sense to peoples lives.

I've been what you might call an armchair Buddhist for many years. I'm at a point where I'd really love to meet other like minded people and get involved with the Buddhist community on a more personal level. I live in London. Having listened extensively online to Dharma talks from wonderful teachers like Gil Frondsal, I can see there are a great many communities in the United States which spread the Dharma. I was wondering if anyone can point me in the direction of similar communities in the UK, specifically London?

What is a Buddhist point-of-view on the New Age concept of God or Universal Consciousness?

I've noticed there are a lot of YouTube video lectures on Nagarjuna . It seems he was a very prolific writer on Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy. Which of his works would be appropriate to get an introduction to his expositions on śūnyatā, the two truths, or relativity?

I went to the vet last weekend and it got me thinking- veterinarians often kill animals in order to relieve suffering; would this form of killing be considered to violate the first precept, even though it would be done out of compassion? If so, would a career in vet medicine not be considered right livelihood? It seems as though leaving animals instead to die a slow and painful death would be inhumane. Just curious, thanks for reading. Ian Found this interesting article via a similar question, if anyone is still interested: http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/geth0401.pdf

Considering the 5 skandas of 1. Form 2. Feeling 3. Perception 4. Volition 5. Consciousness I was told during a study group once that this was only one of many possible formulations of the skandas and other groupings and numbers of skandas were possible and used. However I have never come across any variation in this scheme. Is anyone aware of any alternative formulations of the five skandas?

Can we consider the four noble truth or any other core teachings in Buddhism as dogmas that we *should* accept, or could be learn/understand reality only by experience and mindfulness? Is it possible to come to any other conclusions by meditating and practicing mindfulness? I see dogma as a principle incontrovertibly true. Thanks a lot.

This question is mere practical: how a practitioner avoids that his mind wanders away into stories and dramas. There are moments that "noting" does not help.

Let me illustrate this question with an example: Assume "A" killed someone intentionally, as a consequence the police took A and he is in jail. After all his/her time in jail, will A be free from his Kamma OR A will still need to experience being killed as a consequence of his/her actions? So, when do worldly consequences "clean" Kamma and when don't they? Sorry for the example involving killing, it is just to illustrate.

I am unsure the definition of 'good' in Buddhism. My assumptions are of 'good' are; 1. Caused no bodily harm intentionally 2. Caused no mental harm intentionally 3. No expectations when help is offered 4. Willingness to help and support to those who need it 5. Willingness to provide guidance to those who need it If there is a different definition of 'good', it would be appreciated if it can shared. Now assuming, you are surrounded by 'good' people, is that not a form of aversion? For example, if i am constantly hounded by a person's presence and this person has caused mental harm e.g. suffering and i opt to keep my distance and not participate in any activity or relationship with the person but to surround myself with 'good' people, is that not a form of aversion? What if the person has caused bodily harm? What if the person has not provided you with help when you have needed it? In Buddhism, if i choose to avoid such people, is that aversion?

Can you just do so much samatha meditation that you achieve enlightenment?

Is Buddha nature active or passive? Would anyone say that enlightenment means we can suffer (frustration) in an active way?

I seem to have only a rough understanding of the first two noble truths. **dukkha and dosa** Apparently 'dukkha' and '[aversion (dosa)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvesha_%28Buddhism%29) ' are not the same thing. So, why or how not: in what way are they different/distinct? **second noble truth** Also, does naming aversion as one of the '[three poisons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons_%28Buddhism%29) ' imply that aversion is on a par with (i.e., is equal and opposite to) desire? If it's true that aversion is of the same rank as desire then why isn't aversion mentioned in the Second Noble Truth? **taṇhā and lobha** Similarly (in case it's a similar answer) what's the difference between [taṇhā](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%E1%B9%87h%C4%81) (which is the subject of the second noble truth) and [lobha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raga_(Buddhism)) (which is one of the three poisons)? **attachment and desire** In English I'd guess that 'attachment' and 'desire' might have two different meanings: especially, attachment is semi-permanent, may last a longer time. If you're hungry, eat, and then are not hungry, maybe that was a transient desire but not attachment. Conversely, a story like [Muddy Road](http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/14muddyroad.html) (it's the story which ends, '"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"') seems to be warning against attachment (i.e. keeping the same thought stuck in your mind for a long time even after the physical reality has changed) rather than desire. Other stories too seem to warn that it's no so much 'desire' that causes suffering, but rather some kind of inflexibility. Does Buddhism distinguish between attachment and desire? If lobha is translated as attachment and as desire, then which is taṇhā?

Can insight into impermanence suffering and not-self be gained at any point in insight practice or do you have to go through all 7 purifications of insight?

Debate plays an important part of Buddhism. What are famous debate encounters by the Buddha and also by other Buddhist masters like Dharmakīrti, especially with Hindus(exponents of Brahmavāda-Ātmavāda) and Jains?

Hello I wondered if the existence of karma (I believe in it anyway) can take the place of the concept of "God's plan" - which is how some people live with the horrors of Nihilism. I am not a Christian but it seems to me that God's plan is what we humans are missing (existentially) since He died.

Like can you gain insight into the four noble truths by contemplating them? In this sutta the Buddha says that "your duty is the contemplation" and then goes into the four noble truths http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.048.than.html .

I am given to understand deep mental suffering can inflict physical ailments. (very understandable.) Specifically harbouring certain kinds of negative mental constructs, for extended periods of time, leads to certain kinds of ailments. Are there any such contexts in the Buddha's teachings that point out, categorise these?

Part 1:
I was studying some of the Buddha's teaching, when I encountered this notion that Buddhism does not recognize 'Atman' or soul. Buddha did not believe in notion of 'Self'; He did not believe that there was any permanent/in-destructible component in Humans. If there is no permanent/common part between the birth cycles, How can Re-incarnation be justified/proven? edit:
Part 2 :
If Buddhism does not believe in "Self", How can there be Nirvana for one?

I'm sorry it may be a little off topic, does anyone here know anywhere in Thailand or Sri Lanka where Dana is being carried out? Preferably central area, more accessible. Thanks!