text:
Are there other people, according to Buddhism?
When I was on a Self Inquiry retreat last year, I was explaining why I wanted to help other people. One of the two teachers looked at me and said, "There are no other people." That sort-of made sense to me. The next day I had a realization which made it make sense completely.
But the other day (is there another day?) I saw it in a different way: that it simply does not matter whether there are other people or not, because I can never have real insight in to them, so I am completely alone in my path. My image of two people is like spheres touching at one hypothetical point (Indra's Net). I cannot see much through a point-sized window on to (hypothetical) someone-else's world. This is like Vivekacudemani #515:

I am Actionless.
  I am Changeless.
  I am Partless.
  I am Without Purpose.
  I am Eternal.
  I do not require any prop.
I am One, without a Second.

If I am One, can I know anyone else? What does Buddhism say on this point?

This question is predicated on the assumption that there is a "you" that is a "person". On what basis do you make this claim?

@Ryan: I said that I see it both ways. The question is about functioning in everyday life, not about the absolute, which I am not arguing. I have a Chariot, er, car, also. How about you? "Have you had breakfast?"

Here is a link to the Sedaka Sutta, which I took from an answer by @Robin111 to another question. I think it adds to this Question. Perhaps someone can turn it in to an answer?

In Theravada Buddhism the Abhidhamma Pitaka teaches that there are 2 kinds of realities, i.e. the conventional reality (sammuti sacca) and ultimate reality (paramattha sacca).
Conventional reality consists of concepts and entities, e.g. a man, woman, animal, car, planet, galaxy etc. These do not really exist since they are merely concepts with no real point of reference. A car or a person is merely a designation given to a collection of parts put together in a certain configuration.
Ultimate reality consists of Citta (consciousness), Cetasika (mental concomitants), Rupa (materialty) and Nibbana (unconditioned realm).
So when speaking about people we are dealing with conventional reality. In conventional reality concepts exist meaning that people exist.
In ultimate reality people do not exist.
Here is a quote from the Palikanon.com:

"The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance with undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohāra-vacana).
It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammā). But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha-desanā), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhātu) or sense-bases (āyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana) are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc."

If you would like to read a bit more about what the Abhidhamma and ultimate reality is there is a well written chapter called "What is Abhidhamma" in the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda, p. 105-111. Here is a quote from the chapter:

The Abhidharma teaches that the egoistic beliefs and other concepts such as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘person’ and ‘the world’ , which we use in daily conversation, do not adequately describe the real nature of existence. The conventional concepts do not reflect the fleeting nature of pleasures, uncertainties, impermanence of every component thing, and the conflict among the elements and energies intrinsic in all animate or inanimate things. The Abhidharma doctrine gives a clear exposition of the ultimate nature of human beings and brings the analysis of the human condition further than other studies known to them.
The Abhidharma deals with realities existing in the ultimate sense, or paramattha dhamma in Pali. There are four such realities:

Citta, mind or consciousness, defined as ‘that which knows or experiences’ an object. Citta occurs as distinct momentary states of consciousness.
Cetasika, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the citta.
Rupa, physical phenomenon or material form.
Nirvana, the unconditioned state of bliss which is the final
  goal.

Citta, the cetasika, and rupa are conditioned realities. They arise because of conditions, and will disappear when the conditions sustaining them cease to continue to do so. They are impermanent states. Nirvana, on the other hand, is an unconditioned reality. It does not arise and, therefore, does not fall away. These four realities can be experienced regardless of the names we may choose to give them. Other than these realities, everything—be they within ourselves or without, whether in the past, present or future, whether coarse or subtle, low or lofty, far or near—is a concept and not the ultimate reality.
Citta, cetasika, and Nirvana are also called nama. Nirvana is an unconditioned nama. The two conditioned nama, that is, citta and cetasika, together with rupa (form), make up psychophysical organisms, including human beings. Both mind and matter, or nama-rupa, are analysed in Abhidharma as though under a microscope. Events connected with the process of birth and death are explained in detail. The Abhidharma clarifies intricate points of the Dharma and enables the arising of an understanding of reality, thereby setting forth in clear terms the Path of Emancipation. The realization we gain from the Abhidharma with regard to our lives and the world is not to be understood in a conventional sense, but is an absolute reality.

So, apparently the Abhidharma would say that my question is wrongly put, although conventionally, it can be asked. This is perhaps why the teacher said what she said: it was like a Koan, intended to awaken insight.

It depends on what reality one is referring to. Conventionally the question can be asked and answered. Ultimately it cannot. The Buddha once said that it's okay to use conventional language but do not be fooled thereby. Because humans use nouns to describe stuff it can give the impression that there exist substantiality and solidity.

That's funny, I was thinking that conventionally, the question can be asked, but any answer must be necessarily untrue, and absolutely it has an answer (what you said). This is why I quit Philosophy: useless for finding out the truth.

Philosophy also deals purely with conventional reality meaning that there is no real point of reference. Here we are dealing with intellectual knowledge (book knowledge). In ultimate reality we are dealing with experiental knowledge (insight knowledge) which is based on objective observation and non-interaction with mental and physical phenomena. Philosophy can be used for thinking and imagination but it cannot issue Liberation from suffering.

The practice of a bodhisatvva
The entire practice of a bodhisattva is divided into six perfections, which are generosity, discipline, patience, effort, meditative concentration, and wisdom.
  In order to fulfill the hopes of others, it is very important to engage in the practice of generosity, which in turn should be strengthened by a strict observance of ethical discipline, that is, of non-violence.
  The practice of discipline must itself be complemented by that of patience, because you will need to have forebearance when facing the harm inflicted on you by others.
  In order to succeed in these practices, your endeavour must be strong and stable.
  And without meditative concentration that effort will not be so effective.
  Finally if you do not have the wisdom that realizes the nature of all phenomena, you will not be capable of guiding others on the path that leads to enlightenment.
The sweet taste of bodhicitta
If there is one practice that is sufficient to bring about buddhahood, it is the practice of great compassion.
  Chandragomin, a sixth-century Indian poet, said that it is stupid to expect to change the taste of a very bitter fruit by simply adding one or two drops of sugar to it.
  In the same way, we cannot expect the fragrance of our minds, which are so contaminated by the bitter taste of delusion, to change instantaneously into the sweet taste of boddhicitta or compassion on the basis of just one or two sessions of meditation.
  Sustained and continuous effort is extremely important.
As the Buddha himself said, on th strength of their wisdom bodhisattvas abandon all delusion, but through the vigour of applying compassionate methods, they never abandon beings.

The Dalai Lama's Little Book of Inner Peace -- The Essential Life and Teachings

There was also a video in which the Dalai Lama said,

I never consider myself as something special. If I consider myself as something different from you, like I am Buddhist, or even more, I am His Holiness the Dalai Lama, or even if I consider I am Nobel Laureate, then actually you create yourself as a prisoner. I forget these things, I simply consider I am one of the seven billion human beings. We are mentally, emotionally, intellectually, we are the same.

He goes on to say that people get fulfillment of purpose, and "always feel happy", from helping others, etc.
It's not that other people "don't exist": it's that there are not "other" people, not different; i.e. "we are the same".

Thank you for the references. To me, saying "we are the same" presupposes that there are two. Saying "we are one" is a different idea. I like your quote of "not abandoning beings". But still, I don't abandon part of "my" body when it gets sick. Does Buddhism address this distinction?

which distinction are you referring to?

@Ryan: the distinction between self and others, in the sense of: [if there are others] can I ever know (have insight into) them? Or is the "wall" between my experience and theirs simply too great?

insight into yourself is insight into others. this is why chris said we are the same, i believe. if you want direct insight, you can develop and abide in the fourth jhana, and obtain psychic powers.

@Ryan: When I was a child, I wondered if anyone could have insight in to me. Apparently (except for my Guru) the answer is No. I suppose this is like what you are saying. But I have no real insight in to the experience of... ahem, other people. Even two people standing near each other do not see the same thing.

sure they can. they see impermanence, suffering, and non-self.

@Ryan: apparently, we do not see this the same way. Who is arguing with whom? But I have no insight into your thoughts, therefore the question. QED

@nocomprende I made a chat room Nonduality in case you'd like to explain your insight more clearly than is possible in a Q+A or comments.

There is no not-others and there is no others. Buddhism teaches a nondual perspective beyond either extreme, beyond the dichotimization that is the habit of the intellect.
There is not even that One because to mention that One is to already create a separateness. There is just is-ness.
There is not even just is-ness because is-ness implies separation from not-is-ness.
Being such, you may notice that the answers to these kind of questions are not given by words alone but the answer can only be tasted through experience and Insight, a process that obviates the intellect and uses intuition (primordial forms of awareness) to "get it".
Also, arrow analogy here

I was not aware that Buddhism in general teaches a nondual perspective. I thought it was something that people just happened across, and Buddhism does not much discuss it. Advaita does. Nonduality has become very well-known and I rarely see those people mentioning Buddhism.

Buddhism across many traditions does this as well as most notably Taoism, friend and brother of Buddhism. I would recommend the Diamond Sutra Explained by Master Nan and Heart Sutra and also Surangama Sutra.

I think the Heart Sutra is fun because it deliberately disavows all the basic tenets of Buddhism. Can't recall the Diamond, although I have read it before. I will look at Surangama. Thank you.

Well said friend Ahmed, I was about to say the same. Letting go of either extreme we grasp the truth. Je Tsongkhapa's "short essence of true eloquence" is a masterful analysis of non-duality. Early Buddhism was about liberation, it wasn't about intellectually explicating philosophical concepts. Later Buddhism with the luxury of time was able to textualise the felt sentiment of non-duality.

I just found it interesting that I had to create the Nonduality Tag. You seem to be saying that it is beneath consideration, assumed. Maybe I missed this idea in Buddhism all these years. Found it elsewhere though, and more understandable.

Not "beneath consideration." Nonduality is the most important concept to understand and is arguably the spiritual path itself! Through this, every other reuslt is gained. The 1st bhumi is attained from understanding nonduality of self.. On an experiential level of course--not conceptual. It is like Buddho said in his last sentence. Btw.. I would be great excerpts had i the time to read and share from the texts. Hope you didnt mistake my short post for lack of zeal. Oh and remember that Buddha himself is famous for espousing the Middle Way. Anyway nonduality is in every genuine  religion.

Well said. Well said.

@Ahmed - Duality is the composition of this and that and not separation of this and that e.g. I am a father and a husband. I don't see these being different to who i am. Polarity is a separation of this and that e.g. male, female, yours and mine, etc. Since we generally live-out polarized lives, a dissonance of sort arises with the concept of duality.

Right, and Buddhism is about cultivating and breaking free from these separating/compositioning self-definitions. Specifically, Buddhism and Enlightenment in particular is less about all the relative self-definitions and more about the Nondual understanding of self and other in an experiential sense (i.e. Enlightenment is a permanent, irreversible shift in consciousness caused by experientially understanding self-and-other, instead of being limited and bound by the illusion that is our ego).

There are no words.
There are no borders.
There are no countries .
There is no "other".
There is no "self"
But that doesn't mean we do not conceive of words, borders, countries, others and the self but we mix conceived reality with ultimate reality without even realizing it. Mindful Meditation on reality shows us how to untangle our perceptions of reality. We have to practice to understand this.

UUU, and what is the uposatha of the Jain?

no comprende, UUU, and those here possible interested,
assuming it's asked for the purpose of release, for it's purpose this answer follows:
Q: Are there other people, according to Buddhism?
According to the Buddha and his Dhamma, there are all around, all the time, other people, and to hold the perception of the two governing principles arosen, in cases that the perception of self is current out of sign, is a very needed to be reminded to keep right effort arosen and to gain deliverence, so be sure that I or others see UUU`s, or your actions, know what you think, speak or do.
Phenomenalical pondering and try to grasp this view or that are not conductive for release. One just will die, the arrow not removed.
An what is right effort, supported by one, two or three governing principles, not having abound them, not denying them?

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...

"And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...

"And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve."
— SN 45.8

"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...

"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful — to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects."
— AN 10.69

"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...

"Having thus gone forth, following the training & way of life of the monks, abandoning the taking of life, he abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, kind, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given. He takes only what is given, accepts only what is given, lives not by stealth but by means of a self that has become pure. Abandoning uncelibacy, he lives a celibate life, aloof, refraining from the sexual act that is the villager's way."
— AN X 99

"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."

"'When brahmans or contemplatives who are unpurified in their livelihood resort to isolated forest or wilderness dwellings, it's the fault of their unpurified livelihood that they give rise to unskillful fear & terror. But it's not the case that I am unpurified in my livelihood when I resort to isolated forest or wilderness dwellings. I am purified in my livelihood. I am one of those noble ones who are purified in their livelihood when they resort to isolated forest or wilderness dwellings.' Seeing in myself this purity of livelihood, I felt even more undaunted about staying in the wilderness.
"The thought occurred to me: 'When brahmans or contemplatives who are covetous & fiercely passionate for sensual pleasures... I am not covetous... I have a mind of good will... devoid of sloth & drowsiness... a still mind... gone beyond uncertainty... I do not praise myself or disparage others... gone beyond horripilation... few wants... persistence is aroused... mindfulness established......'When brahmans or contemplatives who are unconcentrated, with straying minds... I am consummate in concentration.
— MN 4

— MN 117
"And what, monks, is right effort?
[i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."
— SN 45.8

On significantly of the circumstances here:

The Contemplation of Dualities
Those who don't discern stress,
  what brings stress into play,
  & where it totally stops,
      without trace;
  who don't know the path,
  the way to the stilling of stress:
      lowly
  in their awareness-release
  & discernment-release,
      incapable
  of making an end,
      they're headed
      to birth & aging.
But those who discern stress,
  what brings stress into play,
  & where it totally stops,
      without trace;
  who discern the path,
  the way to the stilling of stress:
      consummate
  in their awareness-release
  & discernment-release,
      capable
  of making an end,
      they aren't headed
         to birth & aging.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Perhaps my question was poorly worded. My point was more that it seems impossible to know someone else's reality, so it is like solipsism. Other answers and comments here say that I can know someone else's experience through my own, but it still seems like speculation. "Useless to ponder."

Such would be "worthy" a question, thought that it could be, and many think they actually can. Mind reading.. It's good to know someones watching you, Comprehende. And whats the different between preoccupation, psychic power and the mirrical of instruction.


text:
Dharma without Karma?
I simply ask myself rather one could make sense of the Dharma and apply it without the concepts of rebirth and kamma?
Though for me it is my personal approach to the Dharma, which i find to be highly meaningful in both theoretical and practical manner. As like no other intellectual complex, I think the Dharma could claim something like describing the essence and nature of being - if such claim should ever be stressed.
I would not dare to discuss this question as a devout follower. My interest is simply philosophical in its nature.
So i am just about to read C.W.Gorwans "Philosophy of the Buddha" and I am very pleased about how well balanced and respectful he treats the topic as a scholar of analytic philosophy.
Considering the concepts of kamma and rebirth, ONE of the approaches the author offers, is that the Lord Buddha just simply took kamma and rebirth as beliefs deriving from his culture, beliefs so deep and taken for granted that he would not spend a second on doubting it - although he must have been very critical to all kinds of believe. But for example, if you consider doubtful questioning in western philosophy, such as "the meditations" of Descartes and Husserl, it seems mostly obvious that doubt could never ever stressed out in the whole sense. Even though while claiming that radical doubt will set up everything to the disposition of rational examination, there will always be some "leftover" belief as remains (for Descartes it was god , for Husserl it must have been the ego). The latter should also be a position that C.Taylor stresses in his historical treatise "Sources of the Self".
Ok, but coming back in addressing my question to you as experts in the Dharma, what are your opinions about this issue? Could we make sense of the teaching of the Lord Buddha without believing that we will be reborn?
As for the concept of kamma, it is possible to make sense of it without believing in rebirth.
Well I do not expect a discussion on a very high intellectual level, but maybe an exchange of ideas and opinions on the applicability of "Buddhism" and its precious teaching in a mindset that could be called "western".
As I found out that it is a major critique of native Buddhists about western fellows that they don't sufficiently reflect the teaching according to their own culture and should not simply adopt it as a belief - which would actually be contradicting the Dharma.
warm regards!

in what way is not reflecting the teaching according to culture a contradiction to the dharma?

Welcome to Buddhism.SE. You might want to do a search for questions that have already been asked on karma and rebirth; many have answers to the very questions you pose. This is most likely a duplicate to at least one of them.

@AndreiVolkov previously posted these answers which expand on the above comment.

@Ryan: the Buddha said not to accept something simply because it was said by an authority, but to prove for yourself. So, not adapting the teaching to one's own culture does not allow one to see things in familiar terms. It would be accepting things on faith, without proper understanding. [I rewrote this, had gotten it backward.]

Though "dharma without rebirth" have appeared here more than once ...

What if there is no rebirth?
What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth?
Is a belief in rebirth a necessity for Buddhist practice?
Is rebirth a delusional belief?
Is rebirth/reincarnation central to Buddhism?

... I'll tackle some of the points as they come to me with a interesting clothing.
"Considering the concepts of kamma and rebirth, ONE of the approaches the author offers, is that the Lord Buddha just simply took kamma and rebirth as beliefs deriving from his culture"
I'm not a buddhologist, so personally, for me to take the proposed idea seriously, the author would have to show, at least:

why the Buddha took the view of those that believe in rebirth and karma?
there's evidence that his context was diverse in regard to beliefs, and that belief in rebirth and karma may not have been as popular as we would think. So why picking this one in particular, when other views are available and believed?
If rebirth/karma was indeed such a deep part of the culture he was in, why he would "sacrifice truth for pedagogy sake" in that particular case?
...when he clearly refused in other circumstances, let alone, that he stated "whatever a Tathagata says from the moment of his enlightenment to his parinirvana, that is so, and not otherwise" -- DN29.
In the case of textual corruption inserting rebirth/karma doctrine, how these corruptions took place, and why?
it would certainly have to happen very early on. Maybe with the cumplicity of all monks and disciples (an extremely ambitious project, I'd say).

"[...] beliefs so deep and taken for granted that he would not spend a second on doubting it"
There's plenty of evidence of the Buddha being careful about his statements (see also number 2 above). Not having knowledge about something (specially something about dharma, his specialty) and declaring it would be quite careless on his part.
"Dharma without karma?"
As for the above, the tradition rejects this view. It's not just a matter of "because it's on the suttas" -- though it's overwhelmingly on the suttas. But I think that (a) the doctrine itself is intimately intertwined with these concepts; (b) it provides a complete picture of the grand scheme of things; and (c) it justifies in a very strong way the importance of the buddhist soteriology, nirvana.
But rebirth/karma seems to be something put aside by secular buddhists. I think their method for rejecting is through empirical evidence and their focus is on practicality. That is, they reject because of the lack of empirical evidence for both concepts, or inability to conciliate them with related empirical evidences:

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. And while we can make good use of kamma and rebirth as metaphor for our moment-to-moment lived experience of change, or of skillful and unskillful action, we simply cannot make any more of it and expect to end up with a system which is compatible with our best understanding of the way the world works.
-- http://secularbuddhism.org/2013/05/29/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu takes rebirth to be a metaphor for the taking on of a momentary self identity when being caught in a cycle of suffering following the conditioned pattern of dependent origination.
Under the Bodhi Tree • Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

If you accept Dhamma, you must at the very least accept impermanence, with respect to phenomenological things. Accepting this, just a logical question: how can an impermanent entity (a human) have a permanent property (of death)?
Rebirth is just the bare minimum logic that dependent origination must state, not to contradict impermanence. There is no Self that transmigrates within Buddhism, so rebirth is just a statement that conditioned experience does not end through further conditioned experience.
Kamma - intentional action, no thing more, is also the most rational nexus for conscious activity. With respect to what an individual can themselves affect, it is one's intentional thought, speech, and action that brings about future states of thought, speech, and action.
One can choose between two extremes:
1: 'Between rebirth and death, a being is the owner of this exact kamma, but between death and rebirth, a being is not the owner of this exact kamma'
This is pure determinism within a life, and pure indeteerminism between lives -
 Essentialism within, annihalationism without.
2: 'Between rebirth and death, a being is the owner of this exact kamma, and between death and rebirth, a being is the owner of this exact kamma'
This is pure determinism within a life, and pure determinism between lives -
 Essentialism all the way!
The Buddha did not advise that either of these were correct - the middle way is the path between extremes, and here it works just as well. Majjhima Nikaya 135 argues for the middle path between the above choices. The Angulimana sutta is an interesting one too for this discussion, to think about kamma, imo!
Now, that any discussion of rebirth starts with the claim 'there is a being [that is reborn [but does not transmigrate]]', should be enough for any follower of Dhamma, and the Buddha, to see this as at best a conventional teaching, not an ultimately important teaching. After all, 'there is a being..' does not sit straight with anatta!
Rebirth and kamma combine to push a person to action their own liberation, because the cycle of impermanence is unsatisfactory, and because only the intentional aim of cessation offers freedom from impermanence.

One doesn't have to believe in karma, rebirth or anything in the Buddha's teaching because the practice of seeing things "as they are" shows us what the truth really is.
The better one actually practices the teaching of seeing "things as they are", the more one  actually sees first hand for themselves "what actually is" without all the distractions & wrong views that arise in one's "business as usual" mind. Then one can see how the words that the Buddha taught fit with one's own experience causing one's doubt in the teaching to lessen.
Those who live by the Dhamma know that practicing the Eightfold path to see things as they are is not a matter of simply reading about the Eightfold path, reading about karma, reading about rebirth or reading about anything. It is not an intellectual pursuit. It is an impartial experiential pursuit.
Hope this helps-Metta :)

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
On 31 planes of existence
According to buddhism, there exists 31 "planes of existence".

Theravada Buddhist cosmology describes the 31 planes of existence in which rebirth takes place. The order of the planes are found in various discourses of the Gautama Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka. For example, in the Saleyyaka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya the Buddha mentioned the planes above the human plane in ascending order.1 In several sūtras in the Anguttara Nikaya, the Buddha described the causes of rebirth in these planes in the same order. In Buddhism, the devas are not immortal gods that play a creative role in the cosmic process. They are simply elevated beings who had been reborn in the celestial planes as a result of their words, thoughts, and actions. Usually, they are just as much in bondage to delusion and desire as human beings, and as in need of guidance from the Enlightened One. The Buddha is the "teacher of devas and humans (satthadevamanussanam). The devas come to visit the Buddha in the night. The Devatasamyutta and the Devaputtasamyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya gives a record of their conversations. The devaputtas are young devas newly arisen in heavenly planes, and devatas are mature deities.
There are more than 10,000 crore (100 billion) solar systems in our Galaxy, and more than 10,000 crore (100 billion) galaxies in our Universe. There are many Universes in space. Past and future lives may occur on other planets. The data for the 31 planes of existence in samsara are compiled from the Majjhima Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Digha Nikaya, Khuddaka Nikaya, and others. The 31 planes of existence can be perceived by a Buddha's Divine eye (dibbacakkhu) and some of his awakened disciples through the development of jhana meditation. According to the suttas, a Buddha can access all these planes and know all his past lives as well as those of other beings.
 Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school - Wikipedia

Hence the question:
Are these 31 planes of existence actually existing all around us RIGHT HERE where we are (as in 31 'dimensions' per se), or are they belonging in different planets and galaxies far apart from each other? Since 'planes' can also mean 'dimensions' if viewed from such a perspective.
Please verify! Thanks for your patience!
IMAGE: 31 planes of existence - Ven.Suvanno Mahathera

They are said to be located from a certain distance from the human realm.
ex: The closest heaven to us is the Chaturmaharajika heaven. It is located 42,000 Yojjanas above from the human realm. But the tree devas and certain Asuras/Yakkas also belong to this heaven. The closest hell realm 'Sanjiva' is located 15,000 Yojjanas below the human realm. Refer to this chart for more details.
As I've heard, humans can't see the Devas unless they develop the divine eye or if the devas make their bodies solid and reflective. In the same way, Devas can't see the Brahmas. So I would assume that the places they dwell are also invisible to average humans. You can possibly call them other dimensions or just think of them as what you can't see yet in this world system. It's the same with hell realms. Peta Vattu has stories about hungry ghosts in the human relam.

Does our entire visible ( and whatever is invisible) universe constitute our world system?

Yes, the 31 planes of existence constitute 1 world system.

A collection of 1000 world systems is called "sāhasra-cūḍika-lokadhātu". A collection of 1 million world systems is called “dvisāhasra-madhyama-lokadhātu".A collection of 1 billion world systems is called the "trisāhasra-mahāsāhasra-lokadhātu".

dark matter perhaps? :)

@Anthony That could be interesting :)

Nice answer.......

The Buddha said in many places his Dhamma is directly visible. The directly visible Dhamma is the only Dhamma refuge the Buddha described.
The 31 planes of existence appears to be psychological archetypes; that is all. For example, various suttas literally refer to parents (Iti 106) and moral husbands & wives as "gods" (AN 4.53) and literally refer to the "human state" as a state of virtue & wisdom (SN 56.47). In MN 37, Sakka, the King of the Gods, has a physical palace with gardens & sexy female nymphs, which merely gives the impression of worldly kings, emperors & oligarchs.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is ritual described in the Pali canon?
There are a great many Buddhist rituals which vary across Buddhist schools and traditions. Did the Buddha describe any rituals which were  to be done as part of practice in the Pali canon? Or are the rituals we see today later additions perhaps emerging from specific cultural or historic contexts.

The words of the Buddha for today (July 25) in this book is regarding ritual.  And here is a dhamma talk by Venerable Yuttadhammo regarding this passage and rituals. Thought you might find it interesting. :)

I do not know of a sutta where the Buddha suggested ritual. (There may be one; I just don't know of it.) But I do know of a sutta where the Buddha guided a follower to understand that ritual is ineffective. In SN 42.6, Paccha-bhumika Sutta: [Brahmans] of the Western Land the Buddha gave 4 examples of crowds trying to affect an outcome with rituals. Here are two for example:

"Very well, then, headman, I will question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: There is the case where a man is one who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world!' What do you think: would that man — because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people — at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world?"
"No, lord."

and also:

"Suppose a man were to throw a jar of ghee or a jar of oil into a deep lake of water, where it would break. There the shards & jar-fragments would go down, while the ghee or oil would come up. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'Sink, O ghee/oil! Submerge, O ghee/oil! Go down, O ghee/oil!' What do you think: would that ghee/oil, because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people sink, submerge, or go down?"
"No, lord."

The sutta ends with the only effective "ritual" that I'm aware of from this time; which is the listener going for refuge.

"I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life."

Most of the Buddhist rituals are about paying respect to the Triple Gem. Paying respect is praised and encouraged in the Suttas.

Asevanā ca bālānaṃ paṇḍitānañca sevanā,
  Pūjā ca pūjanīyānaṃ etaṃ maṅgalamuttamaṃ.
  - Not to associate with the foolish, but to associate with the wise, and to honor those worthy of honor — this is the highest blessing - Mangala Sutta
"Here, student, some woman or man is obdurate and haughty; he does not
  pay homage to whom he should pay homage, or rise up for whom he should
  rise up, or give a seat to whom he should give a seat, or make way for
  whom he should make way, or worship him who should be worshipped, or
  respect him who should be respected, or revere him who should be
  revered, or honor him who should be honored. Due to having performed
  and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... - Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta


text:
Is a prior human existence required for a current/subsequent human existence?
If I, this impermanent and suffering and no-self array of aggregates, am journeying through this human realm now, shall I assume that that which was "my prior life", another impermanent and suffering and no-self array of aggregates, was also journeying through the human realm (i.e. a prior human existence is a prerequisite for a subsequent human existence)? I am inclined to think that it is possible for an individual array of ever-fluxuating potentialities to "pass" through the human realm consecutively a number of times.

As I see it, if we assume a linear, unidirectional temporality, it is logically impossible that a prior human existence be necessary for a human existence since there could never be a first existence.
Concerning the beginnings of existence, according to, e.g., the Assu Sutta:

"A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on."

According to Buddhism, it is not only possible to be reborn as a human many times but, as I take the Mata Sutta to declare, certain that each person has:

A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not
  easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your
  brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the
  past is not easy to find.

I cannot think of any specific references about consecutive human births in the Pāli Canon, but one may, given the appropriate conditions, e.g., having practised generosity, achieve their desires for some kinds of birth. So, it seems that one could theoretically be reborn several times in a row as a human if they desired it and accomplished the necessary conditions. (cf. AN 8.35)

If anyone has any specific references to consecutive human rebirth in the Pāli Canon; please let me know, either by comment or in your own answer. Thanks!

Yes, it is possible to be born human again. As I've heard, if you keep to the five precepts well, you have a high chance of being born human again. If you practice the 10 wholesome actions, you have a high chance of being born in one of the heavens. If you meditate and attain Jhana, you will be born in Brahma realm.

I agree with Sankha Kulthantille. His answer is the complete one. If you gain enough Karma, not only can you be born human again and again you can even skip being a human and have better births, in the same manner. But this shouldn't go without saying, that these kind of wishes aren't praised by Buddhist teachings. We as Buddhists, should look forward to nirvana, not many more lives.


text:
How should satipatthana be understood in regard to external/internal minds?

"In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself. (Thanissaro)

How should the fragment above be understood and practiced in detail, in particular, considering the last two alternatives: externally and internally/externally?

See: Satipathanna Sutta and contemplating mind externally?

Here is a short quote from an article on BuddhaNet called "The Vipassana Retreat - The Six Sense-spheres". In here it's talked about how internally and externally should be understood.

The Vipassana Retreat

The Six Sense-spheres

The teaching of the sense-spheres is to be found in the Contemplation of Mind (dhammanupassana) in the text we are following: the Satipatthana Sutta, which by now is familiar to you as the Four Establishments of Mindfulness.
After each section in the text in the Satipathana Sutta, you will find this passage: "In this way he abides contemplating the body as a body (or feelings, mind states and mental phenomena) internally, externally, and both internally and externally". What does this mean? It means that the focus of one's attention changes from the subjective (internal) to the objective (external) and by "both" is meant the understanding of the interrelationship or interdependence.
The focus of the practice so far has been mainly introspective; now the watchfulness or attentiveness can be expanded to include the external as well. That is, the attention is switched from the subjective to the objective. This is done by orientating to the sense-spheres, which are about the relationship between oneself and the outer world. Practising both internal and external satipatthanas can prevent self-absorption, and achieve a skilled balanced between introversion and extroversion.
The importance of contemplation of the sense-spheres is that it directs awareness to the six “internal” and “external” sense-spheres and the fetters (samyojana) arising in dependence on them. Although a fetter arises dependent on sense and object, the attaching nature of such a fetter should not be attributed to the senses or objects themselves, but to the influence of the hankering pull of desire (tanha)...

The article says further on how to make an orientation to a sense-door:

Orientation to a Sense-door
To make an orientation to a sense-door, you start by literally coming to your senses - seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling. These are the five sense-doors or sense bases; the 'sixth sense' is 'consciousness of something', which is the mind-base with its eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc. You also need to be aware of the senses internally as well as externally. That is, the organs and their sense objects: nose/smell, tongue/taste, body/tactile objects, ear/sound, mind/mind-objects or consciousness.
Attentiveness or 'presence of mind' at one of the sense-doors during a sense impression is the way to practice. For example, most people are predominantly visual, so being attentive at the eye-door allows you to notice the effects of the contact between the eye and the visible objects and how you are relating to them.
The process is this: there is the eye (the internal base), and a visible object (the external base). With contact or a sense impression between the sense-door and external object, consciousness arises followed by feeling. The moment of consciousness ordinarily is too rapid to catch while the feeling tone can be more easily known and apprehended.
This orientation to a sense-door brings awareness of what is happening during the moment of contact or the sense impression, and with it the ability to monitor the associated feelings and consciousness that arises. When this feeling tone is apprehended, the link to liking and disliking is broken and therefore one is free at that moment from conditioned suffering.

Here is a quote from the Wiki on the 6 sense bases:

Ṣaḍāyatana (Sanskrit) or saḷāyatana (Pāli) means the six sense bases (Pāli, Skt.: āyatana), that is, the sense organs and their objects. These are:
Eye and Vision
Ear and Hearing
Nose and Olfaction
Tongue and Taste
Skin and Touch
Mind and Thought
That is, in Buddhism, the sixth "internal" and "external" sense bases are: mind (Skt., manas; Pali, mano); and, thought (along with memory and emotion) (Skt., dharma; Pali, dhamma).
Ṣaḍāyatana is the fifth link in the Twelve Nidānas of Pratitya-Samutpada (Dependent Origination) and thus likewise in the fifth position on the Bhavacakra (Wheel of Becoming). Ṣaḍāyatana (Sense Gates) is dependent on Nāmarūpa (Name and Form) as condition before it can exist.

In what way does one subjectively or objectively focus on a sense? it says it is done by orientating to the sense spheres? But that doesn't seem to convey any direction at all as to what should actually be happening?

I updated the answer to include the orientation to a sense-door.

Thanks, that's a very clear answer calling out the internal/external as the  subjective/objective or the way I understand it, interpreted/observed viewpoints.

Thank you! I hadn't gotten around to checking out the article yet myself :)

@Ryan. Don't worry about it. May you be well and happy.

@SriLanka you as well friend

There's a long discussion here on DhammaWheel: Satipatthana: Internal and external contemplation
It starts by saying that, according the commentarial literature (emphasis mine),

The first way of interpreting follows the Abhidhammic and commentarial literature, which interprets 'internally/externally' to encompass phenomenon arising in oneself and others. So, when one contemplates body/feelings/mind/dhammas, one contemplates them in oneself and in others. We of course cannot read the minds of others. But reading the Abhidhammic and commentarial literature, Ven. Analayo suggests that we can direct mindfulness towards the outer manifestations of others (facial expressions, posture, movements, etc) so as to practice satipatthana 'externally'.
The second way of interpretating is suggested by some contemporary teachers who interpret 'internally/externally' to refer to what is inside of the body and what is on the outside of the body--i.e. the surface of the skin. I won't reproduce Ven. Analayo's arguments in detail here. But he more or less argues that while such interpretations are not entirely unfounded and have their practical benefits, they have their limits (e.g. it becomes hard to maintain such a distinction when one begins to contemplate the dhammas).

Ven. Sujato's translation is,

And so they meditate observing an aspect of the mind internally, externally, and both internally and externally.
Iti ajjhattaṃ vā citte cittānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā citte cittānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā citte cittānupassī viharati;

The word used there for "internally" is ajjhattaṃ ...

concerning oneself in oneself; inwardly, personally; in regard to oneself (opp. bahiddhā).

... (and for externally, bahiddhā), so IMO it's plausible that the opposite of "in oneself" might be "in someone else".

In Uddesa Vibhaṅga Sutta one of the main Suttas where the term internally and externally is analysed in detail. Analysis of what internally and externally appears multiple places. Couple quote on this is as follows, but it is best to read the whole Sutta to get a more thought out idea.
Summary

Bhikshus, a monk should examine things in such a way that while he is doing so, his consciousness
  is neither distracted nor scattered externally, nor slack internally; and by not clinging,
  would be unagitated.
  Bhikshus, if his consciousness is neither distracted nor scattered externally, nor slack internally;38
  and by not clinging, is unagitated, then there is in him no further arising or producing of suffering,
  that is, of birth, decay and death.”

Internally:

Having cognized a mind-object with the mind, if his consciousness follows after the sign of mindobject,
  bound to gratification in the mind-object sign,
  enthralled by gratification in the mind-object sign,
  yoked to the fetter of gratification in the mind-object sign—
  then, the consciousness is said to be distracted and scattered externally.
  Thus, avuso, is the consciousness said to be distracted and scattered externally

Externally:

Having cognized a mind-object with the mind, if his consciousness does not follow after the sign
  of mind-object,
  not bound to gratification in the mind-object sign,
  not enthralled by gratification in the mind-object sign,
  not yoked to the fetter of gratification in the mind-object sign—
  then, the consciousness said to be distracted and scattered externally.
  Thus, avuso, is the consciousness said to be undistracted and unscattered externally.

Insight

He does not regard consciousness as the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness
  as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
  That consciousness of his changes, becoming other.
  When that consciousness of his changes, becoming other, his consciousness70 is not caught up with
  the consciousness‟s changing.
  No agitated mental states born of the preoccupation with that consciousness‟s changes arise together
  and continue to overwhelm his mind.
  Because his mind is not overwhelmed, he is fearful, vexed, and full of longing, and due to non-clinging,
  he is unagitated.
  Thus, avuso, is there neither agitation nor clinging.

Sorce: Uddesa Vibhaṅga Sutta.

It seems like the internal and external headings are flipped.


text:
Who said "cease to do evil learn to do good purify the heart"?
Who said this as a complete description of the Buddhist path

Cease to do evil
Learn to do good
Purify the heart

I thought it was Bodhidharma but I can't find the exact reference for the quote. Many Thanks.

It's verse 183 of the Dhammapada.

I don't expect it's a "complete description".

"This is the teaching of (all the) Buddhas." - implies the obviousness of it to anyone who is awakened. How wonderful and how true.

The actual story I heard was a Chinese emperorer sends for a Buddhist teacher to explain the Buddhist path. The teacher just says "cease to do evil learn to do good purify the heart". The emperor is not pleased and says " but a child of 7 years old could understand that". The teacher replies "But an old man of 80 could fail to put it into practice".

@CrabBucket, here is that story just as you described it. Seems like a teaching story without any specific origins though. http://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/texts/read?num=048

It may sound simple, but many people don't know what evil really means and what causes evil. Even if you tell to get rid of craving, aversion and ignorance, people would still need to be taught what those really mean.


text:
What is the Buddhist Perspective on Lucid Dreaming?
What is the buddhist perspective on lucid dreaming?
I am very curious about my first lucid dream last night.

I suppose if its something that just happens spontaneously to you, there's nothing wrong with it. You could even use the opportunity to try and meditate in the dream state. But beyond that, I would be willing to say that acting to antagonize this state to come about would lay outside the Buddhist path. Not really an answer, just my initial thoughts.

In both Mahayana and Vajrayana lucid dreaming is a big deal. There are meditation manuals on how to do intensive sitting visualizations over a period of about a month with the intention of inducing a dream of a Buddha, Bodhisattva or a Pure Land. Your question is tagged early-Buddhism, which usually means Theravada, which probably would not try to lucid dream on purpose and would ignore it if it happened.

Lucid dreams that lead to liberating insight or do something to craft one's enlightenment are a big deal. Lucid dreams that just open the doors to a new reality are less important, but still useful in loosening our grasp on this material  world. So the answer is it depends on what happened in the dream. Did you say for example happen to lose fear of snakes as a result of the dream? That would be useful versus just having a trippy dream.

Charlie Morley is a lucid dreaming teacher based at Kagyu Samye Dzong in London, his website or courses might be what you're looking for. http://www.london.samye.org/programme/all-events/lucid-dreaming-with-charlie-morley

Lucid dream is a place where you can do more work, more Buddhist practice. For example, if you are afraid of fights you can pick a fight with anyone, man or monster. It's a safe place to try things you can't try in regular life.
Reference: Tibetan Buddhist teacher Tarab Tulku. For more information read Chapter 19 of The Psychology of Awakening anthology by Gay Watson and Stephen Batchelor.

When you sleep, your mind is in somewhat of an uncontrolled state. I understand this to be the reason why monks sleep so few hours. The importance of lucid dreaming to your practice will likely depend on what tradition you adhere to and other aspects of your personal situation. For example, if you align with the Theravada tradition, lucid dreaming may be a helpful exercise in the way that you will be able to spend more time observing the actions of your mind. Beyond that though (in terms of Theravada), I don't think there could be many other benefits of lucid dreaming. If you get all caught up in the dream world and all that you can do while present there, the lucid dreaming may distract you from the real goal of your practice, and ultimately become just another addiction/attachment. But that's just my thought, I've never had a lucid dream so I can't say for sure!

Tibetan Dream Yoga is the original form of lucid dreaming documented for at least 1,000 years.
Just like our Westernized understanding of lucid dreams, the initial aim is to awaken the consciousness in the dream state.
The Basis of Dream Yoga
Their aim is to harness the power of the lucid dream state by "apprehending the dream". Students are then required to complete set tasks to take them to the next level. These tasks include:
Practice sadhana (a spiritual discipline)
Receive initiations, empowerments and transmissions
Visit different places, planes and lokas (worlds)
Communicate with yidam (an enlightened being)
Meet with other sentient beings
Fly and shape shift into other creatures
The ultimate goal in Tibetan dream yoga is to apprehend the dream - and then dissolve the dream state.
When deprived of physical and conceptual stimulus from the dreaming mind, you can observe the purest form of conscious awareness.

Dream Yoga: Lucid Dreaming in Tibetan Buddhism
Also:

Dreaming Yourself Awake: Lucid Dreaming and Tibetan Dream Yoga for Insight and Transformation, by B. Alan Wallace
The Tibetan Yogas Of Dream And Sleep, by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche
Dreams of Awakening, by Charlie Morley (Charlie Morley is a Buddhist but his books are not solely focused on Buddhism and dream yoga)

Thank you for the references. It's ideal if you can also answer the question ("What is the buddhist perspective on lucid dreaming") perhaps by summarizing, introducing, or quoting an extract from what you referenced.

Buddhists use lucid dreaming to prepare for dying, so they can be lucid and ready for whatever comes next.

Tibetan Dream yoga books are all good. Spiritual practice becomes multiplied in lucid dreams.

We have passed through the Samsara with no beginning, through these rounds of birth and rebirth we have come across many peoples, things with what we now in this life sometimes face again and again depending on our karma. In accordance with our morale, concentration and panna-wisdom, we see these reflections sometimes in the lucid dream. If one come across like that, one should note them with mindfulness, at the same time contemplate the effect of karma and dreadful knowledge of long long samsara passing through and try to cut off these attachment working hard for emancipation by means of nothing but insight meditation.

lucid dreaming is like going to another world.you could be in a happy place. or facing your fears it all depends on you.this is my opinion

Please address the questions which is: "What is the Buddhist Perspective on Lucid Dreaming?". See also How do I write a good answer?.


text:
Can the practices of 'Art of War' align with Buddhism?
The Art of War by Sun Tzu is a philosophy espoused by military, politics and enterprises. I recent read of The complete Art of War translated by Ralph Sawyer proposes its use in personal relationships such as friendship and in marriage.
How does such philosophies align with the practices of Buddhism?

If it was written in 513 BCE, that was about the same date as Siddhārtha Gautama was born, and before Buddhism reached China; so in other words the book pre-dates (was not influenced by) Buddhism.

Any passage of Sun Tzu in particular you think runs in parallel with the Buddhist worldview?

Or can you summarize the "proposed use in personal relationships such as friendship and in marriage", for people who haven't read Ralph Sawyer's book, if you want to ask how/whether those proposals/philosophies align with the practice of Buddhism?

@ChrisW - The questions pertains to the complete works of Sun Tzu. The translation by Ralph Sawyer is just that however he has suggested its benefits to work with friends and spouse although no direct examples are given.

It's a cup is half empty, half full kind of thing.
One says, life is full of suffering so one succeeds by coming out a winner ahead of others.
The other says the life is full of suffering, so one must help everyone out of suffering to personally come out of suffering.
One view point creates conflict, the other eliminates conflict.
I see Art of War as short term thinking, and Buddhism as long term thinking. The former has instant appeal, but the latter has appeal to those who are contemplative and not hasty.
Note: I'd like to mention the short book (50 odd pages), "The Buddha Taught Nonviolence, Not Pacifism" by Paul R. Fleischman, MD on the subject of violence. It's a difficult subject, I can't say I agree with the entire book, but it has interesting ideas.

I saw The Art of War as a way to minimize suffering by making the unavoidable (large scale conflict) as effective as possible. If my understanding is correct, then also minimizing the time, energy and damage of the inevitable (conflict in relationships) is the most loving thing to do. Skillful Means applies to anything, right? Even contemplative people need to know what is best to do in the moment. Let me know if I have misunderstood the import of the book.

As a Hetaira Archetype person, reading the episode where the Concubines are instructed and used as an example was quite compelling. (I gave it to a Bible Study group and they liked it too.) Hetairas are motivated by Relationships and caring for people in personal and intimate ways, so I find the book somewhat applicable.

Conflict arises when our imagined expectations from a relationship don't match reality. The Buddha is also known as Tatagatha -one who sees things as they are. He has no imaginary expectation from life, he exists in the present moment, accepting it fully, not judging as wrong or unjust. Thus he has no conflict. To think conflicts are inevitable is a wrong view, leading to hell realms per several suttas.

I agree with your first sentence, but there are two people (groups, nations, etc) involved, and either can precipitate a conflict. This is an essential asymmetry in life: even if I do nothing wrong, you can hurt or harass me. Until everyone is enlightened, this can happen. My choice then is what to do. As a Nation, The Art of War summarizes effective responses. As an Induhvidual (Dilbert spelling) it points out ways to undermine the other person's forces directed against me - "Marital Arts", ha ha. (See story about man on subway asking angry, possibly violent passenger about his wife.)

Sun Tzu says there are some wars that should not be fought. Does this mean he advocates non-violence, or compassion for the enemy? Hardly that, since the advice comes from the cold calculus of war. Intention matters. In Buddhism, the right action with the wrong intention is quite bad. Preferable to wish no harm on the enemy, and get idiotically slaughtered as a result, but better if you can defend yourself while wishing no harm on the enemy.

In Megasthenes' Indica, written circa 300 BC he describes an India where violence existed without hate and wanton destruction: http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415485432/3.asp
[...] if there is internal war among the Indians, it is not lawful for them to touch these land workers, nor even to devastate the land itself; but while some are making war and killing each other as opportunity may serve, others close by are peacefully ploughing or picking fruits or pruning or harvesting.

@no comprende - I agree with the statement Until everyone is enlightened, this can happen i.e. there are two people (groups, nations, etc) involved, and either can precipitate a conflict. This is an essential asymmetry in life: even if I do nothing wrong, you can hurt or harass me. This suggests that until everyone is able to grasp a wider view, the Samsaric cycle continues be in an individual, group or nations.


text:
Do artists/entertainers accumulate positive merit when people enjoy their craft?
A painter whose painting hangs in a public museum, a writer that has their works checked out of the library frequently,  a singer with melodies that calm the mind, and a comedian that gets people laughing are some cases I have in mind.
A harder case would be a rapper. Say their song offends a few people, but doesn't actually hurt anyone. Further let's say that their target audience gets some value from their craft, be it enjoyment, being able to relax, or some other beneficial state. Get creative, feel free to discuss cases not listed here. I only list them to help clarify what I am asking.
However impermanent and fleeting the benefit they provide to others is, when they provide it to thosands or millions of people how does it end up stacking out?
We can also consider the two cases of the artist being, or not being, a Buddhist.

possible duplicate of Will actors really go to hell?

I don't see how these questions are the same. They share a common theme, but are asking very very different things.

I agree. I don't see this as been duplicate or too broad. The question could be made tighter perhaps in the line of do entertainers cause craving or somethin. The do actors go to hell was one of my questions and I was after someone unpicking a specific reference in the Pali canon so different to this. Just my opinion

The one thing that really jumps out at me is intention.
About 6% of the world's population is Buddhist and might be familiar with the concepts explained in Ryan and Buddho's answers. Not all Buddhists would though, due to differences in teachings, understandings, and traditions.
So an overwhelming majority of the world's population (94% or more) may be unfamiliar with this idea of art forms as objects of desire and clinging. So with this, I think we have to allow that the majority of artists, musicians, writers of fiction books, etc. don't have an understanding that their works potentially create suffering. There is no bad intent.
If a person (Buddhist or otherwise) truly understands the potential for their art to create desire, clinging, and rebirth into samsara, and continues to do so for the purpose of malice; that's a whole different thing. But also a very odd hypothetical situation; likely not the norm. :)
I don't think you can paint this with a broad brush due to the relatively small number of people who potentially have the understanding of art as a source of suffering. For most of the world, art including fine art, music, books, etc. is considered a source of beauty and is crafted with love and passion; which is also not understood to tie one to samsara. It's hard to imagine that people with pure intentions would receive a significant demerit; but also hard to imagine they would receive merit.
Edit
I don't believe this view conflicts with the Talaputa Sutta in that, if a person is an artist and full of passion, they aren't leaving samsara anytime soon. There will be more rebirths and certainly some of those rebirths would be in hell realms. I don't understand the Talaputa Sutta to be any sort of a god like judgement or condemnation to a hell realm as a direct punishment for passion in art forms. That would be a theistic view, in my understanding.

that is a good point, Robin. I tend to take things to the extreme without fully thinking through them :)

The specific actor, and his specific wrong view that he had might have led him to say those things as well. I also wonder if there are any actors who might have a right view, or a developing one.

There's a legal maxim, ignorantia juris non expudat. Ignorance of the law does not set one free from crimes committed. Similarly ignorant acts committed with right intention but wrong view will still get one negative consequences per Buddhist doctrine. This is why all ariyas who aren't yet Arhats get subsequent lives on account of residual ignorance, even though they have pure intention. This should serve to underscore the rarity of human life, and why the Buddha says work towards salvation as if one's hair is on fire. The next chance to practice maybe aeons away.

@Buddho, sure, being passionate is being stuck in samsara. And having wrong view means not understanding how to get out of that tangle.

@Robin111 Very true. Another way to put what I was saying is that right view, right intention, right speech and right action all figure in the eight fold path. So while intention is important, and will influence the other parts of the 8 fold path, it cannot nullify or justify wrong action, views or speech. I am not disagreeing with what you said, merely calling out the role of other things besides intention.

I strongly agree here. I don't think Talaputra Sutta can be used to draw much about artists or art. At best, it talks about wrong view, heedlessness and sensual intoxication. Not only it would be limiting to equate (great) art and aesthetics (and regard sensual intoxication as its mere function) in human history, but the suttas themselves have verses: an (artistic) modality explicit endorsed by the Buddha. (Great) art makes use of aesthetics as much as melodies in the suttas. In its complete form, it is regarded as precious because it opens, not because it closes the eyes of the beholder.

According to the Talaputra Sutta, one time an actor approached the Buddha and asked him if he would go to heaven with the devas because he made people happy and forget their worries.
The Buddha tried to dodge answering, but at the actor's insistence, he had to tell him that he'd probably go to hell or the animal realms.
See also:

This question: Will actors really go to hell?
My answer to Are actions in computer games bad for karma?

when they provide it to thosands or millions of people how does it end up stacking out?

I think that an artist might get rich: which, is not necessarily the same as "accumulating positive merit".
If you're asking about artists' livelihood, you might like to read quotes from the suttas about Right Livelihood.

Further let's say that their target audience gets some value from their craft, be it enjoyment, being able to relax, or some other beneficial state

I think that Buddhism might describe music and so on as "conditioned" (you can only hear it in certain conditions and you are unable to listen to it permanently); and, recommend that people seek or learn (instead) an "unconditioned" enjoyment and relaxation.
From that point of view, if you give someone music to help them relax, then they might find it pleasant (relaxing) albeit temporary, however maybe it doesn't for example help to make them a better person.
It might depend on the subject, too, for example books which spread Dhamma might be seen as more beneficial than books which don't.
And as Robin's answer said it might depend on the artist's intent.

Have you ever heard of the 3 schools described as motivational scopes?
Where there is the starting out budding buddhist, like a child in it for self interest, trying to figure out the laws of karma from life to life, moment to moment. Then there is the stone still buddha, attempting to as quickly as possible reach enlightenment so that "they singular" can be free of samsara forever, then there is the scope they call the greatest scope, and it is to not only free yourself from samsara, but all other beings, as they have all been your mother, in a past life. I believe they call this Bodhicitta.

But the thing is karma is still law, it has no ego, the enlightened self interest of the beginner works, if they pop the second paramita in conjunction of compassion and skillful means. Renunciation though would be a large obstacle to a talented rich human though.

It seems to me that this is akin to selling drugs to people. It is of no real benefit to them, and only cultivates in them craving for this pleasure. If anything, I would go as far as to say that such a profession is BORDERLINE on wrong livelihood; Business in intoxicants: manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs. Music elicits such a response in the form of hormones released that it is possible to become addicted to music.

There is a huge difference between art and drugs.

What is this difference. Art is just a word used to create esteem around a sense object that people deeply enjoy.

Well for starters drugs can violently end your life. Drugs come with a crash after the high. Drugs dont cause a lift followed by a return to the norm, they cause a lift followed by withdrawal symptoms.  They are not the same.

To the negative voter: Negative votes are only to be used IMO when the answer is inappropriate or offensive. Please don't cast them merely because of the answer is not to your liking.

It's not my negative vote but I would also downvote any answer that I think is wrong, misleading, or counterfactual -- or incomprehensible or perhaps even unjustified -- in short, any answer that's "not useful". To consider another example this answer says that the third precept ("sensual misconduct") means (specifically) sexual misconduct (its standard meaning is not "don't indulge in chocolate"). Similarly one might have reasonable doubt about this answer, which equates music with intoxicants in order to call it "wrong livelihood".

IMO this could be a better (more informative) answer, if it quoted or referenced some standard doctrine rather than only a personal opinion: for example music is a subject of the seventh precept, not of the fifth.

@ChrisW the question you linked to was not asking about the exact meaning of the 3rd precept, but rather to degree to which indulgence in a sense pleasure would be considered misconduct. The example of chocolate was merely incidental to making the point, as to avoid having to give a lewd analogy in a public forum.

@ChrisW As to your last point, I stand by my assertion, even if it is a bit extreme, as I did say that it was borderline wrong livelihood, not outright. And I didn't equate music with intoxicants in order to call it wrong livelihood, just to easily illustrate my point that both businesses are contingent upon delivering a product to people that can easily distract them from a wholesome, mindful state of mind.

@all This answer is a non sequitur and it does not answer the question. That is why I flipped it -1. So who popped it to 0? I'm about to edit the question to make it less broad and tie it together better.


text:
Are some forms of employment less just to workers, according to Buddhism?
I live in a pleasant apartment complex and work as an Instructor. My job is cushy, which is good because I have health issues (and teach adults with health issues). But I watch workers mow the lawn at the apartment complex, re-shingle the roofs, etc. Other examples are food service workers and auto repair people with oil and sweat on them. I have worked on an assembly line for a while and the biggest problem for me was the intolerable loneliness. (It didn't do much for my feet, hands and back either.) I have cooked, cleaned, repaired cars and appliances and so on, but all in some moderation. I wonder about jobs where people do the same drudge work day after day?
I know about the idea of Karma, but it has gone flat for me, because the idea of Reincarnation has also. Leaving those aside (except for people getting good or bad consequences of their recent choices) what does Buddhism say about whether various work situations are more or less Just / Fair to the workers? This is not about Right Livelihood, because I am addressing the circumstances that workers are put in - the external world - rather than them choosing their work - the personal realm. [Consider only legally allowed work: I am not trying to deal with crime here. Also, don't try to solve the problem, only explain the perspective on it, please.]

In the book "The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity" there was an interesting section on the Buddha's advice to employers on how to treat their employees. I will fill in with direct quotes a bit later. But the message to employers was to treat their employees well and to give them benefits including something akin to modern day medical benefits.
I found this very interesting but not surprising. The Buddha was a social champion in compassion and treating people fairly. Many employers today could learn a lot from his teachings.
Edit
From page 16 of "The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity":

The Buddha's recommendations for the welfare of employees further clarify an honorable path to prosperity. Specifically he mentioned five ways in which employers should treat workers:
Assign work and duties in accordance with their skills and abilities.
Pay salaries befitting their work and service.
Provide medical assistance.
Make wholesome food availble.
Allow for leave and vacations at appropriate times.
These amazingly modern concepts confirm the Buddha's teaching that people are not entitled to wealth if they fail to follow ethical business practices.

The books original source for this information was listed as DN 31: Sigalovada Sutta, The Long Discourses of the Buddha: 461-469.
And indeed from Sigalovada Sutta:

"In five ways should a master minister to his servants and employees as the Nadir:
(i) by assigning them work according to their ability,
(ii) by supplying them with food and with wages,
(iii) by tending them in sickness,
(iv) by sharing with them any delicacies,
(v) by granting them leave at times.

As far as people doing routine work, that doesn't have to be a negative thing at all. Not being overly stimulated in your work can give you plenty of time for being meditative in daily life, being content with a simple life, and getting out of work on time as compared to executives who are married to their careers and stay occupied with them 24/7.

I especially like the last section of your answer about simple work. It's very true. It becomes much easier to be mindful throughout the working day.

This addresses what I am asking well. As for being meditative, I found the assembly line and also repetitive work on the computer to be acceptable (especially with music) for a while, but the loneliness was crushing. Same reason I stopped wanting to be a computer programmer - too much time staring at my "square girlfriend" : )

If I spend too much time idly browsing the web I dampen my meditative concentration, I consider it akin to idle chatter. FWIW, boredom and loneliness are among the first defilements one loses after attaining the ariya states, so there's that to look forward to.

@Buddho: true, but some people express their nature through interacting with others. (Mmm... I sense another question coming on.) So, despite not being bothered by feeling bored or lonely, they can be signals that I am not fully living my path.

I experientially agree simple work is more enjoyable and conducive to being able to practice a peaceful mind and even vipassana! But it certainly wont be as intensive and self-developmental as a full on mini-retreat.. which one can afford if the financial reward with said "more stressful" jobs.

The law of kamma is always in effect. Wholesome actions lead to wholesome results. Unwholesome actions lead to unwholesome results. "Justness or fairness" are both human conventional constructs.
They are acts of extrapolation or superimposing qualities onto reality.
When one is asking whether or not a specific situation is just or fair, one is no longer seeing reality for what it is. One is no longer being objective and non-interfering. When being objective it would only be "seeing" or "hearing" or any of the other senses at work.
When being unmindful of phenomena the mind will follow after an object and begin to evaluate it and form opinions about it. These are mental constructs that have no real point of reference.
This can be verified by doing insight meditation.

I somewhat agree... Another question about ending one's life by not eating said that there are circumstances where non-action is not blameworthy (watching a person being swept away in a flood and not attempting to save them - is not an action). So, there is no compulsion to meddle in peoples' lives, yet if help can be rendered, it reduces suffering. To be involved without getting involved emotionally or in terms of outcome... This follows directly from my question Are there other people.

Yesterday I found myself thinking: "noting, noting..." It was very funny. But I was driving the car at the same time.


text:
Can the Buddhism.SE site function as "the Sangha" for me?
I don't have access to a Sangha just now, and I do frequent this very well conceived and helpful site. Recently I was writing a comment about no longer being a programmer because it was too isolating for my nature ("square girlfriend" = computer screen, ha ha) and I thought: gee, I am staring at a screen now... and for many hours today...
But it is vastly different to be reading and writing with other people (ahem) than to just do an induhvidual activity like programming. Right? I am actually interacting, but somewhat ansynchronously. So I still use and develop some of my Hetaira Archetype skills (more effortful and challenging with only text to interpret and reply by).
Does asking and answering Questions here count as taking refuge in (and providing) The Sangha?

Sangha means different things to different people.
Some people who "take refuge in the sangha" are referring to all the enlightened beings who have ever lived and their refuge is in being inspired by the example of such beings.
Some are referring to the community of ordained monks and nuns and they look to the monastic community for teachings of the dhamma and guidance in their practice.
Some are referring to all followers of the Buddha's teachings not only the enlightened and ordained ones. It's more of a "fellow travelers along the path" concept.
From Wikipedia, "Some scholars have noted that sangha is frequently (and according to them, mistakenly) used in the West to refer to any sort of Buddhist community." The point being there is not one particular thing that is understood to be the sangha that one takes refuge in.
To really answer your question, we'd have to know what you mean by a sangha. But from the context of your question, I'm guessing you mean a community revolving around Buddhism where you can learn and interact with others.
Here is what I'd like to think we're practicing here on Buddhism.SE. It's from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha:

"Then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by appropriate conduct and, having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.

It's a great and wonderful thing that we have a format to try our hand at explaining the dhamma to someone else. It's a great opportunity and a deep responsibility to try our best to get it right. This is a good place. :)
But that said, I don't think it's wise to fully feel that one is taking refuge here as a sangha and depending heavily on it for learning. There are a lot of potential drawbacks. It's very democratic and that can sometimes result in unsound answers getting voted up. We welcome all traditions but that can result in such a mixture of views being expressed it can be confusing to newcomers to Buddhism. This answer to a question about the benefits of sticking to one tradition is a good explanation for what I'm getting at.
As great as the site is, it's not a solid substitute for learning from a teacher or at a center or in some manner of a structured program. It's not the same as walking into a physical location and feeling the quiet, calm, and peace of a space that is dedicated to meditation; even if you have to travel some distance for that experience occasionally. It's a great complimentary practice, but structured learning and meditation (whether local or online) in a particular tradition may offer the depth of the teachings and support for your particular practice that can't be offered in a short answer, democratic, Q & A format community.

Lovely Answer. Your paragraph beginning "It's a great and wonderful thing that ..." is a beautiful statement. I appreciate the list of the drawbacks in your last two paragraphs. Perhaps my question was naive. I used to live in a Retreat Centre, but now I am far away doing things completely different.

@nocomprende, thank you. I'm glad it was useful. :)

For years my sangha was audio recordings and books. I came and went from a couple of IRL (In real life) sanghas. I always found the experience of meeting and talking with like minded people to be beneficial. Even if only like minded in interests and/or curiosity.
There were both Buddhists and non-buddhists in one sangha, but they shared things in common. Meditation practices, belief in some type of morality, or sometimes even interests in psychology.
Some people take the sangha and their practice extremely seriously, and some are more laid back about it. There exist people sprinkled between both extremes.
I would say this could be a type of sangha, but I'd recommend having an IRL sangha in addition to it.
Also if you do not have a Lama or Guru I would say that is more essential than a sangha. Especially if you have questions you wish to get clarification on, that you might not feel comfortable posting on the internet.
I have encountered one commentary after an introduction in a copy of The Tibetan Book of the Dead where the following claim was made. That ultimately the guru serves no function. It was one of the strangest statements I have encountered. I do not have that copy on hand, it is much older then the copy I currently have. I've placed an order for the copy that I read it in, so once it arrives I'll present the statement in its original wording.
Pretty much every other conversation on the subject has said the opposite, that the Guru and a Sangha are necessary.
Edit: So it was more of a statement then an argument.
The ISBN is 9780394730646 and the commentary is by Rinpoche Chögyam Trungpa, for those that want to read it. The statement dealt more specifically with the topic at hand, and I don't want to quote it as it can easily be taken out of context. I find it useful read with the context of the commentary as a whole and with the book itself. (Which I got for 15 cents plus shipping, what a steal!)
So instead I will quote The Bardo Prayer which Protects from Fear which is at the back of the book with other prayers and verses related to the Bardo. I'll keep it as close to the original formatting as possible.
༔ (gter tsheg)

A terma break, a treasure break (Unicode 0F14: ༔)
a punctuation mark or textual delimiter used in a fashion somewhat
comparable to a comma. This mark is known as གཏེར་ཚེག and may ligate
or combine with certain other signs.

When the journey of my life has reached its end,
  and since no relatives go with me from this world
  I wander in the bardo state alone,
  may the peaceful and wrathful buddhas send out the power of
  their compassion
  and clear away the dense darkness of ignorance. ༔
When parted from beloved friends, wandering alone,
  my own projections' empty forms appear,
  may the buddhas send out the power of their compassion
  so that the bardo's terrors do not come. ༔
When the luminous lights of wisdom shine,
  fearlessly may I recognize myself;
  when the forms of the peaceful and wrathful ones appear,
  fearless and confident may I recognize the bardo. ༔
When I suffer through the power of evil karma,
  may the peaceful and wrathful buddhas clear away suffering;
  when the sound of dharmatā roars like a thousand thunders,
  may it be transformed into the sound of mahāyāna teaching. ༔
When I follow my karma, without a refuge,
  may the peaceful and wrathful buddhas be my refuge;
  when I suffer the karma of unconscious tendancies,
  may the samādhi of bliss and luminosity arise. ༔
At the moment of spontaneous birth in the bardo of becoming,
  may the false teachings of the tempters not arise;
  when I arrive wherever I wish by supernatural power,
  may the illusory terrors of evil karma not arrise. ༔
When savage beasts of prey are roaring,
  may it become the sound of dharma, the six syllables;
  when I am chased by snow, rain, wind and darkness,
  may I receive the clear divine eye of wisdom. ༔
May all sentient beings of the same realm in the bardo,
  free from jealousy, be born in a higher state;
  when great thirst and hunger are caused by passions,
  may the pain of thirst and hunger, heat and cold, not arise. ༔
When I see my future parents in union,
  may I see the peaceful and wrathful buddhas with their consorts;
  with power to choose my birthplace, for the good of others,
  may I receive a perfect body adorned with auspicious signs. ༔
Obtaining for myself a perfect human body,
  may all who see and hear me at once be liberated;
  may I not follow all my evil karma,
  but follow and increase what merit I may have. ༔
Wherever I am born, at that very place,
  may I meet the yidam of this life face to face;
  knowing how to walk and talk as soon as I am born,
  may I attain the power of non-forgetfulness and remembrance of past lives.༔
In all stages of learning, high, middle, and low,
  may I understand just by hearing, thinking and seeing;
  wherever I am born, may that land be blessed,
  so that all sentient beings may be happy. ༔
O peaceful and wrathful buddhas, may I and others
  become like you yourselves, just as you are,
  with your forms and your auspicious marks,
  your retinues, your long life and your realms. ༔
Samantabhadra, the peaceful and wrathful ones, infinite compassion,
  the power of truth of the pure dharmatā,
  and followers of tantra in one-pointed meditation:
  may their blessings fulfill this inspiration-prayer. ༔

Thank you. I have a Guru, but I have not been in contact with her for a few years (except inwardly : ) I look forward to reading the explanation of how the guru serves no function - interesting statement. Perhaps it is because ultimately, we are all "One Without a Second" (Vivekacudemani #515)

@nocomprende well the book shipped yesterday, so I'll have it soon.

Arigato Zaisho. Your quote is from Volume 6, and I have vol 3, which includes Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism and The Myth of Freedom, which I read years ago. They are not published online. I wish you could refer to what was said about not needing a Guru, but if you feel it would be unwise, I understand. I liked in the excerpt above how many times sounds were referred to. I used to sit outside and listen to the freeway noises in the distance, for years finding them irritating, then not, then they became bells and organ notes and people toning. Former wife thought I was mad. Not So.

@ChrisW thanks for the edit. I typed it late at night, and I couldn't figure out the linebreak, so I just gave up on it.

@nocomprende the context was specific to the bardo, but while comparing the bardo to the psychological states of life. It said roughly that a guru or spiritual friend can act as a catalyst, but ultimately all progress is up to the individual. Especially true in the bardo, as you are alone, and must recognize emptiness, and the phenomena of the event as projections of the mind.

You're welcome. Editing each line gave me some opportunity to read it (as you had when you typed it).

Householder, interested
Can the Buddhism.SE site function as “the Sangha” for me?
First Saṅgha here, means the Buddhas straight following disciples, and is used to address the Bhikkhu community.
The proper term for your use, a mixed or monk void gathering around the Buddha is called Buddha-Parisā.
It might be that there is occasionally a gathering of the Buddhas disciples, monks, nuns, lay-people, male or female.
There are many actually very respect-less ways the notion Buddha-Sangha is used in modern and western world, not conductive for proper refuge at all and sometimes even to be regarded as fraud or stealing.
Does asking and answering Questions here count as taking refuge in (and providing) The Sangha?
Asking answering does not mean going for refuge necessary. Seeking answers, refuge, outwardly the Buddhas heritage and disciples, is no refuge. Since it is a commercial place at least, not really dedicated to the Sangha of the Buddhas monks, not easy for one to trace the Gems here, if people and words appear and not underlying the rules and principles, it would not easy function as Sangha, even in perfect meaning.
This counts, out of that reason, also for gifts and contributions here. They can not easy be understood as high merits and at large are dedicated to the web-sites owners for there commercial use, but also for what ever common societies members.
While it could happen that there are gifts, reseiving, or on one side or even two sides purified giving, it would be hardly matching the qualities of the Noble Sangha, if one seeks after doing such merits.
So generally merely dangerous to regard the interact as interact with the Sangha of the Buddha, in both, conventional and perfect sense.
How ever, things might change, people come and go, finding the conditions they are inclinated to and at least there might be always accesspoints, doors, traced, left behind, so that those with less dust in the eyes could follow them, find the Tripple Gems, the Sangha, and seek escape by going for refuge.
Some general points on failures in perceiving, fault object..., in regard of refuge, can be found here: How does one become a lay Buddhist?
See also: Association with People of Integrity and many on good association for prosperity here.
To live near the Sangha, to dwell in a borderland to access the Noble Domain, it is required the dwell in a Vatt(a), a place of practice the Noble Tradition, outwardly and inwardly, and to leave home, at least temporary.
If lay people see the benefit of having access to the Noble Domain, they are wise in looking for the conditions that at least such as a "Kuti" and water in a remote area, where single Sages could dwell is available and look that ways to access the village are pleasant to walk.

...As a king intent on battle
  would hire a youth
  in whom there are
      archery skills,
      persistence,
      & strength,
  and not, on the basis of birth,
              a coward;
  so, too, you should honor
  a person of noble conduct, wise,
  in whom are established
          composure
          & patience,
  even though
  his birth may be lowly.
Let donors build
  pleasant hermitages
  and there invite the learned to stay.
  Let them make reservoirs
      in dry forests
  and walking paths
      where it's rough
  Let them, with a clear, calm awareness,
  give food, drink, snacks,
  clothing, & lodgings
  to those who've become
      straightforward.... (SN 3.24)

If ordinary people, no landlords or kings, desire to have the Sangha near, they would need the permission of the landlord, the king, so that a Vatt(a) could be given to the Sangha without worldly, legal strings, they could not accept.
It's good and wise to look after providing such places in the internet-realm, kingdoms, and if wishing to do such great merits, good to let a wise monk assist you in doing so.
What is a boarderland, how to recognice?

Fields are spoiled by weeds;
  people, by passion.
  So what's given to those
  free of passion
      bears great fruit.
Fields are spoiled by weeds;
  people, by aversion.
  So what's given to those
  free of aversion
      bears great fruit.
Fields are spoiled by weeds;
  people, by delusion.
  So what's given to those
  free of delusion
      bears great fruit.
Fields are spoiled by weeds;
  people, by longing.
  So what's given to those
  free of longing
      bears great fruit. (dhp)

(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)