u/AriyaSavaka

5.5 mil vnd = a month salary of a median worker.

600-700 mil tokens before the 5-hour window hit 100%. A day has nearly 5 of such window.

It's GLM Max yearly legacy v1 I bought last Christmas. Best $288/year I've ever invested in. The harness is exclusively Claude Code with 4-8 parallel sub agents for each project, 2-4 projects concurrently.

Came across this dude while scrolling for hairstyles. What a natural mogger

9.5/10 female gaze
9.5/10 overall harmony
9.5/10 bilateral symmetry
9.5/10 vertical facial thirds
9.5/10 hair profile & density
9.5/10 fat distribution
9.5/10 adam apple

9/10 eye area
9/10 browns
9/10 nose profile & nasal bridge
9/10 lips
9/10 cheekbones
9/10 jaw profile & mandibular angle

8.5/10 maxilla
8.5/10 dimorphism
7.5/10 teeth (looks a bit fake)
7/10 eye colors
6/10 stubble genetic

8.5/10 overall

At very early after finished act 1, it gets a total of 4 movement buttons (Evade + Rip and Tear + Leap + act7 augment)

Rallying Cry button need to be pressed on cooldown for OA and move speed

And also buttons for the other class. E.g. Curse of Frailty + Blood of Dreeg if paired with Occultist.

So far a total of 7 buttons to constantly rotate + Feral Claws.

my first ber ever, from a fallen, trash gear hammerdin on p8 countess runs

There's a free ebook titled Scientific Evidence for Reincarnation, NDEs, and Karma with Personal Stories published by the Open Research Consortium. It's a 1,300+ page compilation that aggregates hundreds of historical anecdotes, past-life regression accounts, and paranormal claims, drawing heavily on early researchers like Ian Stevenson. I bring it up here because it's the most comprehensive aggregation of accounts up to date, and the interesting thing is that it contains precisely zero dual-control proof, meaning studies that independently isolate information leakage from the start and have their results independently peer-verified. Despite claiming to be the Scientific Evidence for the phenomenon.

I do not put much stock in personal anecdotes or testimonies because humans are notoriously unreliable when it comes to memory and objectivity. There are massive risks of information leakage, confirmation bias, memory distortion, substance-induced hallucinations, mental illnesses, ulterior motives, and countless other confounding variables.

For past-life memories, what prevents the subjects, or their parents, from simply researching the details beforehand and fabricating a story? I would be much more interested in cases where someone remembers a past life as an disgusting insect, like a dung beetle or a flesh fly. Why is it always a historical human figure, God-like entities, or someone with a dramatic, easily researchable backstory?

When it comes to Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), they do not actually prove what death or the afterlife looks like. If a person is truly dead, they are not coming back to tell the story isn't it? It's always "I died and saw the embodiment of Love" or "I died and saw Buddha being cooked in the Sea of Fire". No you weren't dead hence it's why you're still here, and your bias brain was just hallucinated or made things up. These cases at best are just glorified delusions happening in a failing brain that grasping for straws. That is why people consistently see Jesus, specific religious figures, lovely beings, light tunnels, their opponents in hell, or deceased family members. It's a clear manifestation of deeply ingrained cultural conditioning, psychological yearning, or just pure and condensed horse manure.

This was demonstrated by the AWARE Study, a large-scale medical study led by Dr. Sam Parnia. Researchers placed randomized target images on high shelves near the ceilings of cardiac arrest wards, completely invisible from the floor or a hospital bed. Out of more than 2,000 cardiac arrest cases analyzed across multiple hospitals, there was not a single confirmed instance of an out-of-body patient being able to read or identify those hidden visual targets. Parnia's team wrote plainly that "if no one sees the pictures, it shows these experiences are illusions or false memories," and reported that no subjects saw the images mounted out of sight.

For Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs), to be taken seriously, the experiencer should be able to read a specific sentence written on a piece of paper hidden inside a sealed container. If they are truly detached from their physical body and aware of the external environment, this should be easy. But all we get are vague and high-probability guesses like the movements of the medical staff or the operation of the equipment. These are things anyone can easily deduce or pick up through sensory leakage, especially in a hospital.

The same goes for precognition. If someone can see the future, they should be able to accurately name the upcoming lottery numbers, and do it two or three times in a row to prove it is not a fluke. Anyone can make vague, open-ended guesses and retroactively claim they predicted an event. Repeated and hyper-specific accuracy is the only thing that actually makes a difference.

The story of 2yo Dhammaruwan chanting Pali suttas is a tragedy more than anything else, it's just textbook childhood drilling. Growing up in a deeply devout household provided ample opportunity for passive auditory mimicry. The reality of his daily routine is disturbing to say the least: waking a toddler at 2:00 AM every single morning for rigid meditation and hours of exhausting vocal recitations, what's that if not intense domestic coaching?

I genuinely want the afterlife and psychic powers to be true (and I'm on the same boat with Siha AN5.34#7.9 where he has to put faith on the Buddha regarding the afterlife), but to claim for a fact that there is rebirth and there's proof of it, are an entirely different caliber. Anecdotes and testimonies are not evidence, even more so for extraordinary claims, and the empirical data to date remains at absolute zero. Anyone claiming proof of rebirth or paranormal phenomena must provide data from a rigorous, dual-control framework, utilizing randomized, double-blind, and independently peer-verified environments that completely eliminate placebo effects and isolate information leakage from the start. That of which separates Big Pharma rigorous drug testing from alternate medicine snake-oil grifters. Because without this, any unfalsifiable claim goes

Until then, I'm quite tired by the endless claims of past-life farmers in neighborhood villages, princes, princesses, high priests, heroic veterans, prominent figures, seing Jesus, or seing the Buddha suffer in hell. Show me a case of someone who remembers being a dung beetle or NDE of becoming a flesh fly maggot for a change, rather than a predictable projection of human ego, cultural yearning, or just outright fraudulence.

.
. Sutta 0
.

“You might know that certain things

(1) lead to passion, not dispassion;

(2) to yoking, not to unyoking;

(3) to accumulation, not dispersal;

(4) to more desires, not fewer;

(5) to lack of contentment, not contentment;

(6) to crowding, not seclusion;

(7) to laziness, not energy;

(8) to being burdensome, not being unburdensome.

Categorically, you should remember these things as not the teaching, not the training, and not the Teacher’s instructions.”

AN 8.53

.
. Sutta 1
.

“A moron is characterized by their deeds, and a wise person is characterized by their deeds, for wisdom shines in its traces. A moron is known by three things. What three? Evil conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. These are the three things by which a moron is known.

A wise person is known by three things. What three? Good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. These are the three things by which a wise person is known.

So you should train like this: ‘We will shun the three things by which a moron is known, and we will undertake and follow the three things by which a wise person is known.’ That’s how you should train.”

AN 3.2

.
. Sutta 2
.

“By living together, know that they’re irritable, with corrupt wishes, offensive, stubborn, and contemptuous, jealous, stingy, and devious.

They speak to people with a voice so smooth, just like an ascetic. But they act maliciously in secret, with their evil views and their lack of regard for others.

You should recognize them for what they are: a creep and liar. Then having gathered in harmony, you should expel them.

Throw out the trash! Get rid of the rubbish! And sweep away the scraps, they’re not ascetics, they just think they are.

When you’ve thrown out those of corrupt wishes, of bad behavior and alms-resort, dwell in communion, ever mindful, the pure with the pure. Then in harmony, alert, make an end of suffering.”

AN 8.10

.
. Sutta 3
.

“Someone with ten qualities is placed in hell as if delivered there. What ten?

(1, Body.1) It’s when a certain person kills living creatures. They’re violent, bloody-handed, a hardened killer, merciless to living beings.

(2, Body.2) They steal. With the intention to commit theft, they take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness.

(3, Body.3) They commit sexual misconduct. They have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal.

(4, Speech.1) They lie. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, my friend, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ So they deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason.

(5, Speech.2) They backbite. They repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. And so they divide those who are harmonious, supporting division, delighting in division, loving division, speaking words that promote division.

(6, Speech.3) They speak harshly. They use the kinds of words that are cruel, nasty, hurtful, offensive, bordering on anger, not leading to immersion.

(7, Speech.4) They talk nonsense. Their speech is untimely, and is neither factual nor beneficial. It has nothing to do with the teaching or the training. Their words have no value, and are untimely, unreasonable, rambling, and pointless.

(8, Mind.1) They’re covetous. They covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’

(9, Mind.2) They have ill will and malicious intentions: ‘May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed, or annihilated!’

(10, Mind.3) They have wrong view. Their perspective is distorted: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no such thing as mother and father, or beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is rightly comported and rightly practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’

Someone with these ten qualities is placed in hell as if delivered there.

Someone with ten qualities is placed in heaven as if delivered there. What ten?

(1) It’s when a certain person gives up killing living creatures. They put down weapons and are no longer violent. They’re prudent, living full of understanding for all living beings.

(2) They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness.

(3) They give up sexual misconduct. ...

(4) They give up lying. ...

(5) They give up backbiting. ...

(6) They give up harsh speech. ...

(7) They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial.

(8) They’re content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others ...

(9) They have a benevolent heart and no malicious intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’

(10) They have right view, an undistorted perspective ...

Someone with these ten qualities is placed in heaven as if delivered there.”

AN 10.211

.
. Sutta 4
.

“Killing creatures, mutilation, murder, abduction; stealing, lying, cheating and fraud, learning crooked spells, adultery: this is putrefaction, not the eating of meat.

People here with unbridled sensuality, greedy for tastes, mixed up in impurity, nihilists, immoral, intractable: this is putrefaction, not the eating of meat.

Tough, callous calumniators, pitiless and arrogant betrayers of friends, misers who never give anything: this is putrefaction, not the eating of meat.

Anger, vanity, obstinacy, contrariness, deceit, jealousy, boastfulness, haughtiness, intimacy with the wicked: this is putrefaction, not the eating of meat.

The ill-behaved, debt-evaders, informants, business cheats and con-artists, vile men committing sin: this is putrefaction, not the eating of meat.

People here who can’t stop harming living creatures, taking from others, intent on hurting, immoral, cruel, harsh, lacking regard for others: this is putrefaction, not the eating of meat.

Greedy, hostile, aggressive to others, and addicted to evil, those beings pass into darkness, falling headlong into hell: this is putrefaction, not the eating of meat.”

KN Snp 2.2

.
. Sutta 5
.

“Householder’s son, you should recognize these four enemies disguised as friends: (1) the taker, (2) the talker, (3) the flatterer, (4) the spender.

(1) You can recognize a fake friend who’s all take on four grounds.

1. Your possessions end up theirs.
2. Giving little, they expect a lot.
3. They do their duty out of fear.
4. They associate for their own advantage.

You can recognize a fake friend who’s all take on these four grounds.

(2) You can recognize a fake friend who’s all talk on four grounds.

1. They’re hospitable in the past.
2. They’re hospitable in the future.
3. They’re full of meaningless pleasantries.
4. When something needs doing in the present they point to their own misfortune.

You can recognize a fake friend who’s all talk on these four grounds.

(3) You can recognize a fake friend who’s a flatterer on four grounds.

1. They support you equally in doing evil
2. and doing good.
3. They praise you to your face,
4. and put you down behind your back.

You can recognize a fake friend who’s a flatterer on these four grounds.

(4) You can recognize a fake friend who’s a spender on four grounds.

1. They accompany you when drinking,
2. roaming the streets at night,
3. frequenting parties,
4. and gambling.

You can recognize a fake friend who’s a spender on these four grounds.”

DN 31

.
. Sutta 6
.

“Truly, mendicants, it is quite impossible to perform sensual acts without sensual desires, sensual perceptions, and sensual thoughts.”

MN 22

.
. Sutta 7
.

“Take a mendicant who says: ‘I’ve developed the heart’s release by love/compassion. I’ve cultivated it, made it my vehicle and my basis, kept it up, consolidated it, and properly implemented it. Yet somehow ill will/thought of harming still occupies my mind.’ They should be told, ‘Not so, venerable! Don’t say that. Don’t misrepresent the Buddha, for misrepresentation of the Buddha is not good. And the Buddha would not say that.

It’s impossible, reverend, it cannot happen that the heart’s release by love/compassion has been developed and properly implemented, yet somehow ill will/thought of harming still occupies the mind. For it is the heart’s release by love/compassion that is the escape from ill will/thought of harming.’”

AN 6.13

.
. Sutta 8
.

“Any wise man, should avoid unchastity as a pit of glowing charcoal.

If incapable of leading a celibate life, he at least should not go to another’s wives.”

KN Snp 2.14, the Buddha to layman Dhammika

.
. Sutta 9
.

“It’s better to wander alone, there’s no fellowship with morons. Wander alone and do no wrong, at ease like a tusker in the wilds.”

KN Dhp 330

.
. Sutta 10
.

“When you’ve laid down arms toward all creatures, not harming even a single one, don’t wish for a child, let alone a companion: live alone like a horned rhino.

Those with close relationships have affection, following which this pain arises. Seeing this danger born of affection, live alone like a horned rhino.

When feelings for friends and loved ones are tied up in selfish love, you miss out on the goal. Seeing this peril in intimacy, live alone like a horned rhino.

As a spreading bamboo gets entangled, so does concern for partners and children. Like a bamboo shoot unobstructed, live alone like a horned rhino.

As a wild deer loose in the forest grazes wherever it wants, a smart person looking for freedom would live alone like a horned rhino.”

KN Snp 1.3

.
. Sutta 11
.

“In the past, as today, I say this: ‘A mendicant who is perfected, with defilements ended, who has completed the training, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their heart’s goal, utterly ended the fetter of continued existence, and is rightly freed through enlightenment, can’t transgress in nine respects.

(1) A mendicant with defilements ended can’t deliberately take the life of a living creature,

(2) take something with the intention to steal,

(3) have sex,

(4) tell a deliberate lie,

(5) or store up goods for their own enjoyment like they did as a layperson.

(6) And they can’t make decisions prejudiced by favoritism,

(7) hostility,

(8) stupidity,

(9) or cowardice.’”

AN 9.7

.
. Sutta 12
.

“Once upon a time, mendicants, right here in Sāvatthī there was a housewife named Vedehikā. She had this good reputation: ‘The housewife Vedehikā is gentle, kind, and calm.’ Now, Vedehikā had a slave named Kāḷī who was deft, tireless, and well-organized in her work.

Then Kāḷī thought, ‘My mistress has a good reputation as being gentle, kind, and calm. But does she actually have anger in her and just not show it? Or does she have no anger? Or is it just because my work is well-organized that she doesn’t show anger, even though she still has it inside? Why don’t I test my mistress?’

So Kāḷī got up during the day. Vedehikā said to her, ‘Hey slut, Kāḷī!’

‘What is it, ma’am?’

‘You’re getting up in the day, what’s up with you, slut?’

‘Nothing, ma’am.’

‘Oh, so nothing’s up, you naughty slave, but you get up in the day!’ Angry and upset, she scowled.

Then Kāḷī thought, ‘My mistress actually has anger in her and just doesn’t show it; it’s not that she has no anger. It’s just because my work is well-organized that she doesn’t show anger, even though she still has it inside. Why don’t I test my mistress further?’

So Kāḷī got up later in the day. Vedehikā said to her, ‘Hey slut, Kāḷī!’

‘What is it, ma’am?’

‘You’re getting up later in the day, what’s up with you, slut?’

‘Nothing, ma’am.’

‘Oh, so nothing’s up, you naughty slave, but you get up later in the day!’ Angry and upset, she blurted out angry words.

Then Kāḷī thought, ‘My mistress actually has anger in her and just doesn’t show it; it’s not that she has no anger. It’s just because my work is well-organized that she doesn’t show anger, even though she still has it inside. Why don’t I test my mistress further?’

So Kāḷī got up even later in the day. Vedehikā said to her, ‘Hey slut, Kāḷī!’

‘What is it, ma’am?’

‘You’re getting up even later in the day, what’s up with you, slut?’

‘Nothing, ma’am.’

‘Oh, so nothing’s up, you naughty slave, but you get up even later in the day!’ Angry and upset, she grabbed a door-pin and hit Kāḷī on the head, cracking it open.

Then Kāḷī, with blood pouring from her cracked skull, denounced her mistress to the neighbors, ‘See, ladies, what the gentle one did! See what the kindness one did! See what the calm one did! How on earth can she grab a door-pin and hit her only maid on the head, cracking it open, just for getting up late?’

Then after some time the housewife Vedehikā got this bad reputation: ‘The housewife Vedehikā is fierce, ill-tempered, and not calm at all.’

In the same way, a mendicant may be the gentlest of the gentle, the kindest of the kind, the calmest of the calm, so long as they don’t encounter any disagreeable criticism. But it’s when they encounter disagreeable criticism that you’ll know whether they’re really gentle, kind, and calm. I don’t say that a mendicant is easy to admonish if they make themselves easy to admonish only for the sake of robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick. Why is that? Because when they don’t get robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick, they’re no longer easy to admonish.”

MN 21

.
. Sutta 13
.

“Mendicants, these four things can be known in four situations. What four?

(1) You can get to know a person’s ethics by living with them. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.

(2) You can get to know a person’s purity by dealing with them. …

(3) You can get to know a person’s resilience in times of trouble. …

(4) You can get to know a person’s wisdom by discussion. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.

(1) ‘You can get to know a person’s ethics by living with them. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take an individual who’s living with someone else. They come to know: ‘For a long time this venerable’s deeds have been broken, tainted, spotty, and marred. Their deeds and behavior are inconsistent. This venerable is unethical, not ethical.’

Take another individual who’s living with someone else. They come to know: ‘For a long time this venerable’s deeds have been intact, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred. Their deeds and behavior are consistent. This venerable is ethical, not unethical.’ That’s why I said that you can get to know a person’s ethics by living with them. But only after a long time, not a short time; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.

(2) ‘You can get to know a person’s purity by dealing with them. …’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take an individual who has dealings with someone else. They come to know: ‘This venerable deals with one person in one way. Then they deal with two, three, or many people each in different ways. They’re not consistent from one deal to the next. This venerable’s dealings are impure, not pure.’

Take another individual who has dealings with someone else. They come to know: ‘This venerable deals with one person in one way. Then they deal with two, three, or many people each in the same way. They’re consistent from one deal to the next. This venerable’s dealings are pure, not impure.’ That’s why I said that you can get to know a person’s purity by dealing with them. …

(3) ‘You can get to know a person’s resilience in times of trouble. …’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take someone who experiences loss of family, wealth, or health. But they don’t reflect: ‘Worldly life is like that. Incarnation is like that. That’s why the eight worldly conditions revolve around the world, and the world revolves around the eight worldly conditions: gain and loss, fame and disgrace, blame and praise, pleasure and pain.’ They sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion.

Take someone else who experiences loss of family, wealth, or health. But they reflect: ‘Worldly life is like that. Incarnation is like that. That’s why the eight worldly conditions revolve around the world, and the world revolves around the eight worldly conditions: gain and loss, fame and disgrace, blame and praise, pleasure and pain.’ They don’t sorrow or wail or lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. That’s why I said that you can get to know a person’s resilience in times of trouble. …

(4) ‘You can get to know a person’s wisdom by discussion. ... Take an individual who is discussing with someone else. They come to know: ‘Judging by this venerable’s approach, by what they’re getting at, and by how they discuss a question, they’re witless, not wise. Why is that? This venerable does not bring up a deep and meaningful saying that is peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. When this venerable speaks on Dhamma they’re not able to explain the meaning, either briefly or in detail. They can’t teach it, assert it, establish it, clarify it, analyze it, or reveal it. This venerable is witless, not wise.’

Suppose a person with clear eyes was standing on the bank of a lake. They’d see a little fish rising, and think: ‘Judging by this fish’s approach, by the ripples it makes, and by its force, it’s a little fish, not a big one.’ In the same way, an individual who is discussing with someone else would come to know: ‘Judging by this venerable’s approach, by what they’re getting at, and by how they discuss a question, they’re witless, not wise. …’

Take another individual who is discussing with someone else. They come to know: ‘Judging by this venerable’s approach, by what they’re getting at, and by how they discuss a question, they’re wise, not witless. Why is that? This venerable brings up a deep and meaningful saying that is peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. When this venerable speaks on Dhamma they’re able to explain the meaning, either briefly or in detail. They teach it, assert it, establish it, clarify it, analyze it, and reveal it. This venerable is wise, not witless.’

Suppose a man with clear eyes was standing on the bank of a lake. He’d see a big fish rising, and think: ‘Judging by this fish’s approach, by the ripples it makes, and by its force, it’s a big fish, not a little one.’ In the same way, an individual who is discussing with someone else would come to know: ‘Judging by this venerable’s approach, by what they’re getting at, and by how they articulate a question, they’re wise, not witless. …’

That’s why I said that you can get to know a person’s wisdom by discussion. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.

These are the four things that can be known in four situations.”

AN 4.192

.
. Sutta 14
.

“Mendicants, a shady person can be known by four qualities. What four?

(1) To start with, a shady person speaks ill of another even when not asked, let alone when asked. But when summoned for questioning they speak ill of another in full detail, not leaving anything out. That’s how to know that this is a shady person.

(2) Furthermore, a shady person doesn’t speak well of another even when asked, let alone when not asked. But when summoned for questioning they speak well of another without giving the full details, leaving many things out. That’s how to know that this is a shady person.

(3) Furthermore, a shady person doesn’t speak ill of themselves even when asked, let alone when not asked. But when summoned for questioning they speak ill of themselves without giving the full details, leaving many things out. That’s how to know that this is a shady person.

(4) Furthermore, a shady person speaks well of themselves even when not asked, let alone when asked. But when summoned for questioning they speak well of themselves in full detail, not leaving anything out. That’s how to know that this is a shady person.

A shady person can be known by these four qualities.

A person of integrity can be known by four qualities. What four?

To start with, a person of integrity doesn’t speak ill of another even when asked, let alone when not asked. But when summoned for questioning they speak ill of another without giving the full details, leaving many things out. That’s how to know that this is a person of integrity.

Furthermore, a person of integrity speaks well of another even when not asked, let alone when asked. But when summoned for questioning they speak well of another in full detail, not leaving anything out. That’s how to know that this is a person of integrity.

Furthermore, a person of integrity speaks ill of themselves even when not asked, let alone when asked. But when led on by questions they speak ill of themselves in full detail, not leaving anything out. That’s how to know that this is a person of integrity.

Furthermore, a person of integrity doesn’t speak well of themselves even when asked, let alone when not asked. But when summoned for questioning they speak well of themselves without giving the full details, leaving many things out. That’s how to know that this is a person of integrity.

A person of integrity can be known by these four qualities.”

AN 4.73

.
. Sutta 15
.

“When sentient beings are still not free of greed, and are still bound by greed, an artist in a stage or festival presents them with even more arousing things. When sentient beings are still not free of hate, and are still bound by hate, an artist in a stage or festival presents them with even more hateful things. When sentient beings are still not free of delusion, and are still bound by delusion, a dancer in a stage or festival presents them with even more delusory things. And so, being heedless and negligent themselves, they’ve encouraged others to be heedless and negligent. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in the hell called ‘Laughter’.

But if you have such a view: ‘Suppose an artist entertains and amuses people on a stage or at a festival with mixed truth and lies. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in the company of laughing gods.’ This is your wrong view. An individual with wrong view is reborn in one of two places, I say: hell or the animal realm.”

SN 42.2

.
. Sutta 16
.

“When a soldier strives and struggles in battle, their mind is already low, degraded, and misdirected as they think: ‘May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed, or annihilated!’ His foes kill him and finish him off, and when his body breaks up, after death, he’s reborn in the hell called ‘The Fallen’.

But if you have such a view: ‘Suppose a soldier, while striving and struggling in battle, is killed and finished off by his foes. When his body breaks up, after death, he’s reborn in the company of the gods of the fallen.’ This is your wrong view. An individual with wrong view is reborn in one of two places, I say: hell or the animal realm.”

SN 42.3

.
. Sutta 17
.

“When someone is not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie, there is no bad deed they would not do, I say. So you should train like this: ‘I will not tell a lie, even for a joke.’

What do you think, Rāhula? What is the purpose of a mirror?”

“It’s for checking your reflection, sir.”

“In the same way, deeds of (1) body, (2) speech, and (3) mind should be done only after repeated checking.

(1) When you want to act with the body, you should check on that same deed: ‘Does this act with the body that I want to do lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both? Is it unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result?’ If, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act with the body that I want to do leads to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result.’ To the best of your ability, Rāhula, you should not do such a deed. But if, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act with the body that I want to do doesn’t lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s skillful, with happiness as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula, you should do such a deed.

While you are acting with the body, you should check on that same act: ‘Does this act with the body that I am doing lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both? Is it unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result?’ If, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act with the body that I am doing leads to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula, you should desist from such a deed. But if, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act with the body that I am doing doesn’t lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s skillful, with happiness as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula, you should continue doing such a deed.

After you have acted with the body, you should check on that same act: ‘Does this act with the body that I have done lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both? Is it unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result?’ If, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act with the body that I have done leads to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula, you should confess, reveal, and clarify such a deed to the Teacher or a sensible spiritual companion. And having revealed it you should restrain yourself in future. But if, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act with the body that I have done doesn’t lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s skillful, with happiness as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula, you should live in rapture and joy because of this, training day and night in skillful qualities.

(2) When you want to act with speech, you should check on that same deed: ‘Does this act of speech that I want to do lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both? …’ …

If, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act of speech that I have done leads to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula, you should confess, reveal, and clarify such a deed to the Teacher or a sensible spiritual companion. And having revealed it you should restrain yourself in future. But if, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act of speech that I have done doesn’t lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s skillful, with happiness as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula, you should live in rapture and joy because of this, training day and night in skillful qualities.

(3) When you want to act with the mind, you should check on that same deed: ‘Does this act of mind that I want to do lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both? …’ …

If, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act of mind that I have done leads to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula, you should be horrified, repelled, and disgusted by that deed. And being repelled, you should restrain yourself in future. But if, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act with the mind that I have done doesn’t lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s skillful, with happiness as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula, you should live in rapture and joy because of this, training day and night in skillful qualities.

All the ascetics and brahmins of the past, future, and present who purify their physical, verbal, and mental actions do so after repeatedly checking. So Rāhula, you should train yourself like this: ‘I will purify my physical, verbal, and mental actions after repeatedly checking.’”

MN 61

.
. Sutta 18
.

“There are, sir, some ascetics and brahmins who come to Kesamutta. They explain and promote only their own doctrine, while they attack, badmouth, disparage, and smear the doctrines of others. Then some other ascetics and brahmins come to Kesamutta. They too explain and promote only their own doctrine, while they attack, badmouth, disparage, and smear the doctrines of others. So, sir, we’re doubting and uncertain: ‘I wonder who of these respected ascetics and brahmins speaks the truth, and who speaks falsehood?’”

“It is enough, Kālāmas, for you to be doubting and uncertain. Doubt has come up in you about an uncertain matter.

Please, Kālāmas, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think ‘The ascetic is our respected teacher.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering’, then you should give them up.

What do you think, Kālāmas? Does greed/hate/delusion come up in a person for their welfare or harm?”

“Harm, sir.”

“A greedy/hateful/delusional individual, overcome by greed, kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think, Kālāmas, are these things skillful or unskillful?”

“Unskillful, sir.”

“Blameworthy or blameless?”

“Blameworthy, sir.”

“Criticized or praised by sensible people?”

“Criticized by sensible people, sir.”

“When you undertake them, do they lead to harm and suffering, or not? Or how do you see this?”

“When you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering. That’s how we see it.”

“So, Kālāmas, when I said: ‘Please, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think “The ascetic is our respected teacher.” But when you know for yourselves: “These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering”, then you should give them up.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.”

AN 3.65

.
. Sutta 19
.

“Sir, there are western brahmins garlanded with aquatic flowers who carry pitchers, immerse themselves in water, and serve the sacred flame. When someone has passed away, oh! they lift them up, send them well, and convey them to heaven. But what about the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha: is he able to ensure that the whole world will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm when their body breaks up, after death?”

“Well then, chief, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like.

What do you think, chief? Take an individual who kills living creatures, steals, and commits sexual misconduct. They use speech that’s false, backbiting, harsh, or nonsensical. And they’re covetous, malicious, and have wrong view. A large crowd were to come together to offer up supplication and entreaty, circumambulating them with cupped palms and saying: ‘When this person’s body breaks up, after death, may they be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm!’ What do you think, chief? Would that person be reborn in heaven because of their supplications?”

“No, sir.”

“Chief, suppose a person were to throw a broad rock into a deep lake. And a large crowd were to come together to offer up supplication and entreaty, circumambulating it with cupped palms, and saying: ‘Rise, good rock! Float, good rock! Float to shore, good rock!’ What do you think, chief? Would that broad rock rise up or float because of their supplications?”

“No, sir.”

“In the same way, take a person who kills living creatures, steals, and commits sexual misconduct. They use speech that’s false, backbiting, harsh, or nonsensical. And they’re covetous, malicious, and have wrong view. Even though a large crowd were to come together to offer up supplication and entreaty … when their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.”

SN 42.6

.
. Sutta 20
.

“Worthy Gotama, there are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual person experiences, pleasurable, painful, or neutral, is because of past deeds.’ What does the worthy Gotama say about this?”

“Sīvaka, some feelings stem from bile disorders. You can know this from your own personal experience, and it is generally deemed to be true. Since this is so, the ascetics and brahmins whose view is that everything an individual person experiences is because of past deeds go beyond personal experience and beyond what is generally deemed to be true. So those ascetics and brahmins are wrong, I say.

Some feelings stem from phlegm disorders … wind disorders … their conjunction … change in weather … not taking care of yourself … overexertion … Some feelings are the result of past deeds. You can know this from your own personal experience, and it is generally deemed to be true. Since this is so, the ascetics and brahmins whose view is that everything an individual person experiences is because of past deeds go beyond personal experience and beyond what is scientifically deemed to be true. So those ascetics and brahmins are wrong, I say.”

SN 36.21

.
. Sutta 21
.

“Mendicants, suppose you say: ‘No matter how this person performs a deed, they experience it the same way.’ This being so, the spiritual life could not be lived, and there’d be no chance of making a complete end of suffering.

Suppose you say: ‘No matter how this person performs a deed, they experience the result as it should be experienced.’ This being so, the spiritual life can be lived, and there is a chance of making a complete end of suffering.

Take the case of the individual who does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell. Meanwhile, another individual does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in this life, so that not even a little remains, let alone a lot.

What kind of individual does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell? An individual who hasn’t developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, or wisdom. They’re small-minded and mean-spirited, living in suffering. That kind of individual does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell.

What kind of individual does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in this life, so that not even a little remains, let alone a lot? An individual who has developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. They’re not small-minded, but are big-hearted, meditating on the immeasurables. That kind of individual does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in this life, so that not even a little remains, let alone a lot.

Suppose a person was to drop a lump of salt into a mug of water. What do you think, mendicants? Would that mug of water become salty and undrinkable?”

“Yes, sir. Why is that? Because there is only a little water in the bowl.”

“Suppose a person was to drop a lump of salt into the Ganges river. What do you think, mendicants? Would the Ganges river become salty and undrinkable?”

“No, sir. Why is that? Because the Ganges river is a vast mass of water.”

AN 3.100

.
. Sutta 22
.

“(1) There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual person experiences, whether pleasurable, painful, or neutral, is because of past deeds.’

(2) There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual person experiences, whether pleasurable, painful, or neutral, is because of God Almighty’s creation.’

(3) There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual person experiences, whether pleasurable, painful, or neutral, has no cause or reason.’

(1) Regarding this, I went up to the ascetics and brahmins whose view is that everything an individual person experiences is because of past deeds, and I said to them: ‘Is it really true that this is the venerables’ view?’ And they answered, ‘Yes’. I said to them: ‘In that case, you might kill living creatures, steal, be unchaste; use speech that’s false, backbiting, harsh, or nonsensical; be covetous, malicious, or have wrong view, all because of past deeds.’

Those who believe that past deeds are the most important thing have no enthusiasm or effort, no idea that there are things that should and should not be done. Not finding as a genuine fact that there are things that should and should not be done, they’re unmindful and careless, and can’t rightly be called ascetics. This is my first legitimate refutation of the ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view.

(2) Regarding this, ...

Those who believe that God Almighty’s creative power is the most important thing ... can’t rightly be called ascetics. This is my second legitimate refutation of the ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view.

(3) Regarding this, ...

Those who believe that the absence of cause or reason is the most important thing ... can’t rightly be called ascetics. This is my third legitimate refutation of the ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view.

These are the three sectarian tenets, as pursued, pressed, and grilled by the astute, which, when taken to their conclusion, end with inaction.”

AN 3.61