If u/Bhikkhu_Anigha could give their thoughts on this, it would be much appreciated.

I'm not necessarily talking about bodily or verbally breaking the precept. I'm mainly asking about mentally breaking the precept through the related unwholesome intention that the HH virtue wiki mentions.

I can't help but think that killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, or even consuming intoxicants in a video game requires unwholesome intention in terms of the 5 precepts.

For instance, killing a digital creature in a video game. Our minds still see it as a creature that we are depriving of life. So there is intention to kill a being, even though it is technically not a living creature with sentience. So one would be cultivating unwholesome intention in terms of the 1st precept when playing video games that involve killing.

While I do understand that playing video games isn't wholesome as it's often for entertainment, I'm asking the question as a clear example of this concept that I'm not sure about. Another example would be stories where characters kill monsters. It seems to me that rooting for, approving of, or delighting in the character killing their enemies in the story would be breaking the 1st precept mentally.

This is a follow-up question to the HH video "The Most Acute Description of the Right View". It's not clear how to distinguish the Right View from depersonalization/deralization? Let's imagine that a friend of mine, due to some historical reasons, easily slips into the state of depersonalization/derealization. For him it's always just a glance away: just "look in another way" and the sense of self is lost. But for him this doesn't seem "freeing" at all - on the contrary, the experience is that of impending doom. The whole existance is permeated with the feeling of impending doom and imminent death. So this is surely an immature defensive mechanism which has little to do with Awakening, enlightenment or whatever. This was actually one of the reasons why my friend took up all this meditation stuff - he believed that he could get rid of relying on it so heavily. Another reason he took up the whole "meditation thing" is to get some bliss and happiness - but what he got instead was completely contrary. Instead he constantly and predictably keeps falling into this state of depersonalization and realization due to meditation. At the and of any Goenka or Mahasi-style vipassana retreat he predictably feels very dissociated. It's usually reinforced by his complete loss of sleep at those retreats, which is either side-effects of intense meditation or direct instructions from the teacher. So to summarize, in the video they talk about "liberation", i.e. Right View somehow setting them free, but this poor guy consistenly feels quite the opposite of this "liberation". He feels "enslaved" by the "flow of things", which he cannot change in the slightest. It looks very gloomy in part because of complete loss of self-agency, i.e. it feels like he can't exert even a slightest influence on the "flow of things". So the only option for him is to "observe" this "flow of things" in this dismal awe. So what would you recommend this poor guy? How should he approach the Right View, if even he is to approach it at all?

I used that term because I'm not actually sure what the term is in English (in Thai it's "ทำบุญ"), but I can give a few examples just to clarify what I mean.

When a person dies some people will (out of tradition) ordain for some period of time (mostly two weeks) for the deceased person. Some people will also ordain as such at least once after they become an adult (i.e. will no longer be a samanera if they ordain) for sake of their parents.

Even Ajahn has mentioned once that (during pindapati?) when a layperson gives food to a person of right view, there is good merit for the giver and receiver.

Now we have the traditional interpretation of "good luck" and whatnot but obviously that's not what is meant by this. Here's my understanding of it, maybe someone, even Bhikkhu Anigha, could verify my understanding here.

There was a conversation between Venerable Thaniyo and Ajahn Nyanamoli where they mentioned that when one meets a person of right view it is like coming into contact with a divine messenger because you would not be able to ignore the difference in demeanor in someone who is an arahant, an anagami, or even a layperson of right view.

(Sidenote: someone might view this statement as conceited since it was mentioned in the context of Venerable Thaniyo meeting and consoling laypeople, but this fact is ultimately true regardless of whether that person of right view was himself or someone else, so it isn't necessary to be conceited to make such a statement.

Also, Venerable Thaniyo was the first to make mention of it, so it is more likely that he isn't speaking about others meeting himself, but actually of him meeting Ajahn, though I'm not sure how they met so this is just speculation.)

How come one is not able to ignore this? Suppose you were to meet someone who speaks your language but in a different dialect. You would notice the difference in their speech, even if they were saying the same thing as you. So too if you meet someone of the right view, even if they have the same physical faculties as you and are under the same circumstances as you, it would be hard not to notice the difference between your own attachment and their indifference, even if subtle.

Maybe it is the case that the noble one is met with minor or even major disrespect, but seeing that such a person is practically unmoved (even if they are able to recognise that it is offensive, not just in the social sense but personally), you'd find it hard not to notice.

Or maybe it's enduring physical effort and external conditions where the noble one is clearly also experiencing the same "hardship" (also sweating, also exhausted, i.e. speaking the same language) yet seems not to be personally affected (is able to take it without ill-will towards his physical situation, i.e. speaks a different dialect to one who cannot have non-ill-will towards such circumstances)

Thus, to "do good merit" for your parents isn't so much for the sake of their richness and health, although it is a possible side effect. Having dwelled in a (supposedly, assuming the monastry isn't riddled with corruption or anything) better environment than the dusty and crowed household life, his mind becomes elevated (basically he grows up) and his parents, upon meeting him, will perceive this (or rather, as a double negative, they are unable to ignore it). The drastic change then essentially forces them to reflect on their own shortcomings (parts of themselves which they have not grown out of) and thus also elevates the mind of his parents. If on account of that elevation of mind, the parents gain the clarity to earn more money, remain healthier, or gain for themselves a better circumstance, then that is "good merit" in some sense, but one will not succeed if it is made a primary goal. It is also completely tangential: the true merit comes in the development of the mind, however subtle.

In the same way, to "do good merit" for a deceased person isn't so much for the sake of their good rebirth, although it is a possible side effect. Having dwelled in a better environment than the crowded and dusty household life, his mind becomes elevated (above the grief and lamentation over his companion's death) and his friends who are still living, upon meeting him, will perceive this, or rather are unable to ignore it. This drastic change then essentially forces them to reflect on their own shortcomings (their own grief and lamentation over things which are impermanent, unownable, and cannot conceivably be otherwise) and thus also elevates the minds of his living peers. If, on account of that, the deceased person (or rather spirit) witnesses all this while between death and rebirth, has his mind elevated as he reflects on his grief and lamentation over his own death, and on account of this finds a better rebirth, then even that is "good merit" in some sense, but one cannot conceivably make this their primary goal (as opposed to the first case where you can sort of imagine it, this case relies on faith in the Buddha). It is also completely tangential: true merit comes from the development of the mind, however subtle.

In an HH video on relationships being unwholesome, they say that they are certainly unwholesome if your goal is to practice dhamma towards arahantship.

Is this also true if your goal is to practice towards stream entry? And from there, is it possible to change your goal from stream entry to arahantship?

I have a question to people who may have dealt with this.

Basically I noticed that when I have a job I burn out, it's too much. I don't have energy for anything else. I wonder whether it's possible to get some more energy even when working a physically demanding job with a lot of activity, elements, people, restraint and all that heavy stuff

I recently watched a video that as subject told a story about a man full of dreams that had a plan of pursuing his dream when free of work, but later that man realised he has no energy to pursue anything and his dreams die. Very sad story

My question is essentially whether it would be wrong to cultivate generosity, kindness and a mind of friendliness if I’m still not yet fully developed in restraint. (Not yet fully celibate). Will it help me towards deepening renunciation and understanding, or will it just be another escape from pressure.

Assuming I’m not doing it when pressured to do so, but with the right intention of calming aversion to pressure, instead of getting rid of pressure thru sensuality.

Btw, I understand metta better as friendly (non illwill) bodily, verbal and mental action, not just repeating phrases in my head.

Should I make it a serious focus of my practice to not only never harm, but also do kind acts to other beings, charity and generosity and train the mind in friendly attitude?

tl;dr: last paragraph before “Thank you.”

Hi. I will try to be brief. I would appreciate any guidance because this has been weighing on me heavily. I have rewritten this post several times over several days. I have no reason to expect that I wouldn’t be shown kindness here, but in posting on Reddit before, when looking for help, I have been dragged through the mud. So, I guess what I am saying is, please be kind, if you can. I am just trying to do the right thing and I don’t know what that is.

It seems to me that hiring or directing someone to kill for you is worse than doing it yourself. You are still killing, it is just that you are using another human being as your weapon. So instead of just you getting the bad kamma of killing, both of you do.

2.25 years ago I agreed to foster a cat for a stranger on facebook for 6 months to a year. I told the woman she could visit every two weeks. I never saw her again.

Now the cat is my best friend. He is healthy. But I am not, and I am poor. I have little to no savings. While not young, he is not old, and he is everything a cat-lover could wish for in a cat.

Many cats, when they get sick or old, just wander off to die somewhere. However I don’t know if/when that will happen. It is possible that he will just end up agonizing loudly continuously for weeks. I would not be able to sleep, and if I go to work without sleep I am putting myself and others in danger of grievous bodily harm or even death. I probably won’t have the funds needed to ensure his comfort during the process of dying. And I can’t violate the first precept by euthanizing him should such a set of circumstances arise. So, I am thinking that the best option is to rehome him now, while he is still a delight. Find him a new owner/caretaker who would be happy to have him. He loves all people, so I am confident he wouldn’t miss me too much. I would miss him more.

However, here in America, euthanasia is generally considered to be the humane option for the pains of severe illness or death. My state recently approved medical assistance in dying for humans.

So, if I rehome him (my cat) now, and the new owner does not give me explicit assurances that they won’t euthanize him under any circumstances (which I imagine would be near impossible to come by), and they go on to euthanize him, perhaps years from now, am I culpable for the killing?

Thank you.

I've started analysing and questioning my choices more attentively and have a question based on that.

If I do something and immediately experience suffering already as I am acting, does it automatically mean that the action is unwholesome or it could be something else as well?

For example I noticed that harsh speech immediately results in suffering, but maybe not everything is as straightforward as harsh speech

> “Regardless of everything else – the specific situation, the immediate or superficial outcome, and whether people approve of it or not – an action motivated by greed cannot be harmless or blameless. The same applies to any action motivated by aversion (which includes fear, irritation, impatience and so on, as well as outright anger). And the same also applies to whatever is motivated by sheer carelessness or disregard.”

Why is it easy to apply this teaching on anger and difficult to apply on other states like irritation,fear, impatience, carelessness, etc? I find that such unwholesome states have grades and some are easy to discern while some are difficult to discern as underlying motivations. Any pointers or help in this direction will be welcome. How to work on seeing each of these motivations when you lack self-transparency? How to be less delusional in regards to these motivations than you already are?

“One begins developing this practice of awareness by being mindful of the experience as a whole. For example, one is mindful of ‘being-seated-on-a-chair-reading-a-Dhamma-essay’. That is one’s situation at that very time. That is one’s experience as a “whole”. This is always the necessary starting point. What is very important is to prevent the tendency to become absorbed in one particular thing. (Feeling, sensations or perception, and similar). Instead, one has to broaden the mindfulness and become aware of the generality of one’s current situation, without losing the sight of the particular either.

Of course, the attempts of discerning the background of one's current experience will not be perfect in the beginning. One will more often than not fall into a mistake of over-attending one’s experience as a whole. This is a mistake of making that background into an object of one’s attention, defining it, clarifying it, trying to keep it in front. These are all ways of making it a foreground, which means that then something else will be in place of the background.” -- Ven. N. Nyanamoli in his essay Peripheral Awareness.

The background is always a plurality of things on the same level of being as the foreground. The whole encompasses both the foreground and the background, and is on a higher level of generality, a different order of being. (According to the schemata laid out by the saḷāyatana the body is always in the background, always the “here” in experience.) Attending to the periphery would be horizontal awareness. Yoniso manasikāra requires satisampajañña, a stepping back vertically, at right angles to horizontal awareness. This is why satisampajañña is best practiced with activity that requires little thought. A lot of peripheral awareness is involved when engaged in our worldly projects and tasks. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s not the “proper” way to alleviate suffering. I do recognize that peripheral awareness can be useful in accentuating the whole, since it keeps us focused on the task at hand.

The goal is to direct one’s attention to the whole, making it the foreground of a yet more general whole. This brings to prominence the hierarchy of consciousness. It’s essentially a thing (our situation) against a background of itself as it endures. The insight being that this thing (our situation) isn’t a free floating entity independent of the levels that lie beneath it. And that our situation is an aspect of a yet greater whole, the greatest of which is our individuality.

If I’ve gone astray here, I’d welcome to be corrected by someone with greater understanding.

Does anyone know why it's unwholesome to store food, and to harm plants and seeds?