text:
How does one practice Buddhism when experience is limited by the 6 senses?
If one is limited by the senses and the formation of the sense, how does one practice Buddhism which espouses interrelatedness and interconnectedness?
For example, if i simply taste the grape i have in mouth, how do i realize that the grape is the result of the elements of nature e.g. propagation of seed, pollination, inception of a seedling, sprout, etc which in turn is supported by the sun, rain, soil, etc

"Five senses" is an ancient Greek idea. We have many more senses, as many as 90 or more, such as detection of bodily state changes, and many others we're not consciously aware of. For instance, you're constantly aware what you're muscles are doing. People who have brain damage may lose that sense, and they lose a great deal of motor control. What is the sixth sense you refer to? The intellect, higher reasoning? It is that which makes it possible for you to achieve those realizations through processing your other dominant senses.

If you're eating a grape and you are thinking about the soil and farmers and so on, then you are not eating the grape, you are thinking.  This isn't mindfulness.
You don't try to be interconnected.  You let go of all the conceptualizing that infiltrates experience.  The idea here is that your concepts are the thing that blocks interconnection; let them go, and there's interconnection.  You needn't develop it, you just need to remove the barriers to it.
Ironically, one of those barriers is precisely the exercise you mentioned.  Your thoughts about how you are interconnected to that grape is exactly what's keeping you from really being connected to that grape.
You don't connect in an ecological or social sense, but in an experiential sense.

Thich Nhat Hanh teaches an eating meditation which is very similar to what you describe in terms of understanding interconnectedness. From his book "be free where you are":

When you eat you can practice mindfulness. Mindful eating can bring you a lot of joy and happiness. In my tradition, eating is a deep practice. First we sit in a stable position and look at the food. Then, mindfully, we smile at it. We see the food as an ambassador that has come to us from the sky and from the Earth. Looking at a string bean, I can see a cloud floating on it. I can see the rain and the sunshine. I realize that this string bean is a part of the Earth and the sky.
When I bite into the string bean, I am aware that this is a string bean that I have put into my mouth. There is nothing else in my mouth-not my sorrow or my fear. When I chew the string bean, I am just chewing a string bean-not my worries or my anger. I chew very carefully, with one hundred percent of myself. I feel a connection to the sky, the Earth, the farmers who grow the food, and the people who cook it. Eating like this, I feel that solidity, freedom, and joy are possible. The meal not only nourishes my body, but my soul, my consciousness, and my spirit. (pages 4 - 5)

It is interesting to note that Thich Nhat Hanh gave this dharma talk at a prison. (The recording of the dharma talk was later transcribed to a book.) He was speaking to people who had very little freedom in the conventional sense, but as always, his message is that with mindfulness we free ourselves from everything whether it be concrete walls, fears, hatred, anxiety and every moment should be a moment of meditation and mindfulness.
My understanding of this type of eating meditation would be not to think in a "busy" way about how a grape was grown, but to focus fully on the experience of eating the grape and understanding with gratitude all that has gone into the grape.
Here from Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village website is a bit about tea meditation:

At times, when we are drinking tea with a friend, we are not aware of the tea or even of our friend sitting there. Practicing tea meditation is to be truly present with our tea and our friends. We recognize that we can dwell happily in the present moment despite all of our sorrows and worries. We sit there relaxed without having to say anything. If we like, we may also share a song, a story or a dance.

If this particular style of teaching or practice is of interest to you, reading some of Thich Nhat Hanh's many books would be a good place to learn more. Best wishes.

The Buddha taught about stress, the cause of stress, that there is an end to stress, the path to the ending of stress.
He taught the way by means of using the 6 senses to see the 3 characteristic of conditioned thing, dukkha (stress), anatta ( non-self), anicca (impermanent) using the five aggregates and the law of dependent origination.
Various other meditation practices, both insight and calm, are also taught to relieve attachments, hence suffering so that we are able to do the task of see the three characteristic in conditioned things.
When one of the three characteristics are seen clearly we pass through the gateway of voidness or emptiness ( when anatta is seen), the gateway of the signless ( when anicca is seen) and the gateway of the desirelessness ( when dukkha is seen). - Theravada tradition.

Thanks for the answer Samadhi. I was wondering where I can read about the "gateways". I mean where these words are used. Not just the 3 characteristics or signs but where voidness, emptiness,desirelessness are used.

I read about it in the path of purification, Visuddhi magga after the completion of all the 16 nanas, liberation is through one of the 3 gateways. It is also in Chapter 9 of the Abhidhamma, The Visuddhi magga is easier to read. :)

Thanks a lot. I have been looking for that for a while now.

In insight meditation, you are trying to understand the interrelatedness and interconnectedness between different parts of yourself, as well as yourself and the world. Not parts of the world with itself, that has no relations to you.
For e.g. the taste of the grape? how do you sense it? how do you perceive it? how does the concept of its flavour appear in your mind? what kind of emotions and memories does it invoke in you?
From this question:
On page 31 of Good Questions, Good Answers it says,

Explain what insight meditation is
During insight meditation a person just tries to be aware of whatever happens to them without thinking about it or reacting to it.
What is the purpose of that
Usually we react to our experience by liking or disliking it or by letting it trigger thoughts, daydreams or memories. All these reactions distort or obscure our experience so that we fail to understand it properly. By developing a non-reactive awareness we begin to see why we think, speak and act the way we do.

I don't think Buddhism does espouse interrelatedness and interconnectedness in such a way.
Your story of the origin of the grape isn't what I'd expect to be aware of when I eat a grape.
A story like that is useful sometimes for teaching that things have no independent existence: without sun, no grape; without seedling, no grape; without soil, no grape; and without this body and this moment and hunger, no experience of grape; etc. Therefore grape is precarious, impermanent, and shouldn't be relied on to be permanently satisfactory. I don't know how many of those stories (about different things) you need to tell yourself before you generalize it to the realization that everything is "conditioned".
Another way in which interconnected is used is in the sense of "no self". The Dalai Lama said he would be "imprisoning" himself, if he were to think of himself as "Buddhist, Dalai Lama, Nobel Prize Winner, etc." and that instead he prefers to think of himself as being "just like everyone else".
There is some other interconnectedness too, for example how you behave towards other people (e.g. whether you're kind or angry) allegedly has an effect on yourself (but I think that's an interconnectedness within you).
However in this answer I mention that Christopher Titmuss writes explicitly that the Buddha didn't teach that "oneness is the ultimate reality".

However, this source says,

In my fairly extensive reading of the Pali canon (not to mention Mahayana Sutras) I don’t recall the Buddha ever talking about our “separateness.” It’s a popular topic of discourse in modern Buddhist writing (I’ve written about it myself in Living as a River) but the Buddha just didn’t use that language (or if he did, it’s not been recorded). He talked a lot about misery, but he talked of the origins of misery lying in greed, hatred, and delusion. Now I know you can interpret greed, hatred, and delusion in terms of separateness (again, I’ve done so) but the point is that the Buddha didn’t use that language.

So if I say that "Buddhism doesn't espouse interrelatedness and interconnectedness" then perhaps I'm wrong: perhaps that is "a popular topic of discourse in modern Buddhist writing", even if "the Buddha didn’t use that language".

ChrisW, I believe the example used in the question is one that is very common to the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh. But certainly not to all Buddhist teachers.

I expect you're probably very right. Would it be better do you think if I deleted this answer? Do you have any suggestions for what 'tag' to add to the question: to clarify the context (or tradition) of the question? And/or can you answer the question?

I only know I've read of this in a TNH book and can try to answer a bit later. Maybe others teach this too; but I've only seen his teaching. I don't think you should delete your answer. It speaks to the fact that this is not a universal teaching.


text:
Direct interaction between Gods and men
From the Mettanisamsa Sutta, one of the benefits of practising metta is that the Devas would protect him. This leads me to my question.
According to Buddhism and the suttas, do the Brahmas and Devas have any direct interaction with human beings? Please provide examples.
Are these interactions all positive or also negative?
Which ones are initiated by humans and which ones are initiated by Brahmas and Devas?
Could this explain some interactions between God and human prophets in other religions?
The God of the Old Testament sounds very much like the Mahabrahma of the Brahmajala Sutta:

Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the
  exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made,
  feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in
  glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.
"Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time,
  there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns):
  'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment,
  due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their
  merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There
  they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long,
  long period of time.
Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am
  Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
  Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
  the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
  are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is
  the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings
  might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these
  beings have come.'

Your own thorough practice of Metta is your best protection.
Being reborn in a God realm is not the goal in Dharma Practice.
Leaving Samsara is the initial goal, and Buddhahood is the Ultimate Goal.
Gods and Devas also are within the rounds of Samsara.
As beings who take rebirth in the God realm also eventually have to leave that realm when their karma for that lofty position is finished.
Actually this human rebirth is the best for the full attainment of Enlightenment.
Here is funny talk on just this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibx_2nmHyV0&feature=youtu.be&t=960

Householder Ruben, interested,
Are these interactions all positive or also negative?
While they can be binding on the path, the association with Devas and Brahmas in required to go beyond and starts with accepting right view.
A Sutta, which transports the need as well the dangers, althought not easy to grasp right, is:
AN 2.35: Samacitta Sutta — Minds in Tune

“Friends, I will teach you about the individual interiorly fettered and the one exteriorly fettered. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”...

More on that:

Association with the Devas - associated Rebirth
Modern "hierarchy" and devotion - obstacles: āgati & agati

And how do the follower of the Noble ones use the association with the Devas and Brahmas? Following the cleaning technics of the Noble Ones, doing the Uposatha duty:

"[Again, the Uposatha of the Noble Ones] is the cleansing of the mind through the proper technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed through the proper technique?
"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the devas, thus: 'There are the Devas of the Four Great Kings, the Devas of the Thirty-three, the Yama Devas, the Contented Devas, the devas who delight in creation, the devas who have power over the creations of others, the devas of Brahma's retinue, the devas beyond them. Whatever conviction they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of conviction is present in me as well. Whatever virtue they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of virtue is present in me as well. Whatever learning they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of learning is present in me as well. Whatever generosity they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of generosity is present in me as well. Whatever discernment they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of discernment is present in me as well.' As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is calmed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as when gold is cleansed through the proper technique. And how is gold cleansed through the proper technique? Through the use of a furnace, salt earth, red chalk, a blow-pipe, tongs, & the appropriate human effort. This is how gold is cleansed through the proper technique. In the same way, the defiled mind is cleansed through the proper technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed through the proper technique? There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the devas... As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is cleansed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned. He is thus called a disciple of the noble ones undertaking the Deva-Uposatha. He lives with the devas. It is owing to the devas that his mind is calmed, that joy arises, and that whatever defilements there are in his mind are abandoned. This is how the mind is cleansed through the proper technique.

Once someone, by faith in the Tripple Gems, generosity, Virtue, has gained access toward the Brahmas, able to join their reunion, ones mind is proper prepeared to hear the teachings of disadvantages, renounciation and the Dhamma of the Arahats.
If one access as poor person on the high teachings it would be often just the Uposatha of the wolf, the "beggars-renounciation", and as soon as pleasures in the sensual realms arise, he would turn away from his practice, join the pleasures of the Devas.
Only for one knows all realms in this world can let go of their lures. For the fox and the graps there is not much hope and his incapacity excuses will not find ends.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

source: Stack Exchange

license: 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/

sort: votes


text:
Enlightened Lies - Can lying be the correct action in certain situations?
Can lying be the correct action in certain situations? Bhikkhu Bodhi gave an example of a situation where  lying might be appropriate:
  In World War II some nice people would hide those oppressed by the Nazis. If Nazis come and ask these nice people if they are hiding Jewish people, would it be the appropriate action to tell the truth?

The end of this answer quotes Bhante Dhammika as saying, "If I had good reason to suspect that the second man was going to do serious harm to the first I would, as an intelligent caring Buddhist, have no hesitation in lying."

I've just amended your title to make it a bit more descriptive. Please roll back if it doesn't suit

Of course lying is sometimes called for.  Morality is not about mindlessly following rules, but in seeing beyond our egoic concerns and doing what the situation calls for (Skillful Means).  Mindlessly following rules is how cults and death camps get started.
Moral guidelines have a place, and more often than not, they should be followed.  However, there is no replacement for using our brains to study the situation and decide if these rules are applicable there.
Buddhism is about overcoming suffering, with a special focus on the self as the axis upon which suffering revolves.  So look at all Buddhist teachings through that lens.  Don't ask what the Buddhist teachings tell you to do; rather, ask what lies behind that teaching.  What is it about the self that lying perpetuates?  Is it really lies per se, or is it that...

Lies often inflate our egos?
Lies often hide our shame?
Lies are ways we try to bail ourselves out of trouble and as such are
enablers of immoral behavior?

What situation would call for lying?

@Ryan saving a life, keeping a critical secret, sparing feelings, planning a surprise party, telling a joke...

Do you have a reference in any of the suttas where the buddha told a lie to keep secret a surprise party

or where the buddha taught that lying was useful at all

@Ryan well, the original question was about the ethics of lying, not Sutra justification.  However, we could use the Kalama Sutra as a catch-all for using my judgment -- not that I need the Sutras' permission to think or follow my own moral compass.

Are we supposed to be that robotic? Maybe the Buddha didn't think of every situation that could possibly come up to put rigid rules to the test.

I humbly disagree with this answer. How does one save a life by lying? Secrets almost always harmful. There's the concept of tough love, sparing feelings is coddling which doesn't do a service in the long term and only serves to protect their egos which is not an enlightened notion. Even planning a surprise party is tricky--if you lie to your significant other, and they believe it, then in the future they might question whether you're lying believably, and it weakens trust. You can omit the truth without telling falsehoods. My intuition tells me that lying is virtually never a good policy.

@sss4r I have to humbly disagree on all points.  If I can save a life by lying I will do so without hesitation, and will ignore any Sutra or so called "authoritative source" that suggests otherwise. If a spouse wonders whether the other is a liar because of a lie for a surprise birthday party, then that spouse is either pathological or the real issue is that the trust was broken long ago.  I've never encountered anyone so broken as to treat a lie for something like a surprise birthday party as a violation of trust.

I don't get why you'd want somebody to lie to you (or vice versa), about a birthday party.

There are no Enlightened lies. Fourth precept is the one precept that the Bodhisatta has never said to have broken since he started cultivating Paramita, many Kalpas ago.
Four conditions must be met to break this precept

The statement must be untrue.
There must be an intention to deceive.
An effort must be made to deceive.
The other person must know the meaning of what is expressed.

Causes of False Speech
The root causes of false speech are greed, hatred and delusion.

Greed is the root cause when false speech is used to obtain
material gain or status for oneself or someone dear to oneself.
Hatred is the root cause when false speech is used to cause loss
and bring harm and suffering to others.
Delusion is the root cause when it is used neither for one's gain
nor to cause loss and harm to others, but for the sake of
enjoyment such as lying for the sake of a joke, exaggeration to
spice up a story, or flattery to please others, etc.

But what people forget is that not giving information is not the same as lying.
In the case of the Nazis example, they wouldn't have taken your word even if you did lie. They would have searched your house in any case. It's not like they needed a warrant back then. So, instead of saying "yes we do have jews hiding in our house", you could improvise and say something to throw them off.
ex: "What?? You think we are that crazy? Heil hitler!!" :)

A question that has the "intention" to make others have a false impression of reality is a lie to me and where

Wait a minute, "Four conditions must be met to break this precept" doesn't the example break rules 3 and 4?

All 4 should be satisfied. The statement is not untrue. Therefore, it does not break the precept.

An effort isn't being made to deceive? The Nazis would know the meaning of what is expressed? By saying "Heil Hitler" what the Nazis would think is that the meaning of "Heil Hitler" is that they are Nazi supporters and that breaks rule 4 doesn't it? Am I missing something? Where can we find these 4 conditions in the Suttas or Sutras? Metta:)

@Uilium Page 245 of this document (i.e. the Vinaya) says lying is an offense of confession, with only two factors: "1) Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
2) Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to
communicate based on that aim." Whether it is a lie doesn't matter (only intention i.e. whether you intend to tell a lie), and result doesn't matter (only effort i.e. whether you try to tell a lie). OTOH the 4th precept isn't narrowly about lying but more broadly about right speech.

All 4 (or 5) factors are required, for some of the other offences (other than lying) for example killing (see page 75): 1) victim must be human b) offender must want to cause death c) must perceive the victim as alive d) must act to kill e) victim must actually die.

"Heil Hitler" means you are simply greeting hitler. You are not responsible for what Nazis assume :)
Here's a link http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/PDF_BuddhismCourse/11_%20Five%20Precepts.pdf

@Sankha Kulathantille It doesn't matter about the Nazis condition here, what matters is the intention...to do unwholesome karma...like deception...deception is unwholesome action, right?

@Uilium, the statement isn't false. Therefore it doesn't break the precept. Just like in the case of Prince Nanda.

@Sankha Kulathamtille did I say it broke the precept?

@Uilium, it doesn't create bad Karma either. Just like in the case of prince Nanda

Someone feels sad, angry or complicated, asked by other people/stranger 'how are you?' And he answered 'I'm fine or I'm ok.' Is this considered lying?

@B1100 Not if you mean "I'm fine without your help"

But we normally just say we are fine or ok although we feel otherwise. Is saying 'without your help' creating social awkwardness?

No you don't need to say " without your help". It's implied. When a stranger asks "how are you", he asks it as a formality. He's usually not interested in your personal stuff.

@SankhaKulathantille Then I think the answer will fall into idle speech?

@B1100 it doesn't! You are giving that answer to let him know that he needn't worry about it. And that you are ready to move on to what he really wants to discuss.

My view is that according to you " You think we are that crazy?" falls into deception, as the intention here is clearly to make them understand you are not hiding anyone. If you don't lie and don't deceive in this case (i.e. you tell the soldiers the truth), you will create not only suffering for the people you are hiding, for yourself and even for the soldiers, so I think it is acceptable to lie, and it is inline with the Kalama Sutta. metta

Deception is not lying.

Yes the intention!

I believe morality is more important. If we lie to cheat someone or to gain an advantage, then it would be wrong, but...to lie to save a persons life or lessen suffering, i think that is commendable, and it should be the foucs of all humans, regardless of race, ethnicty, religion or even viewed as an enemy or friend. We all know what pain feels like, we all know what suffering feels like, and if we have the opportunity to help reduce or end that suffering, then the opportunity should be taken regardless of who the other person is!!
Metta

Is it all a matter of perspective and/or perception? Each of us sees a circumstance from a set of values embedded in our experience & personality. Our culture, spiritual aspirations and social interactions also impose on us group expectations of how we should behave and in some respects what we do or do not say. There is most definitely the capacity to lie by commission which is not always considered [that bad, if at all] in the moment a lie is conceived.
Yes lying can be a predictor of mental illness (Why Some Narcissists and Borderlines Lie), if not a manipulative and deceiving personality (The Truth About Lying  —
Deception is rampant, and sometimes we tell the biggest lies to those we love most) but I urge consideration of the maxim 'walk a mile in their shoes'.
If we are being lied to, does it not auger well to consider what it is about our behaviours that creates in that person the need to lie to us [whether that be to not hurt us, to leave a relationship or whatever]. Unless dealing with a psychopath, a dynamic that involves the intent and then the energy of concocting the details of the lie and then more than likely having to hold the lie for a period of time, must hold some resonance from the lie-ee. We are not always so innocent in these situations.
I work with offenders who can be deceitful and manipulative. When I get out of my professional 'presence' and consider what the future [and in fact the past] is for them, their families and others who have been impacted by their poor choices and associated behaviours [not least of whom is the victim of any crime] I still have to consider that my luck has held out.
There but for the Grace of God go I, most of the people I have worked with in the forensic setting were not bad people. They were people who did what they could with the information and choices [mostly limited at the time] available to them when offending. Who am I to judge? I doubt that I would make similar choices, but quite frankly I don't know. What would I do if I suddenly found myself unemployed, on the streets or in what ever set of circumstances that might cause me to lie, deceive or manipulate so that I could increase my chances of surviving the next 24 hours, or may the next hour.
Yes I know there are some pretty mean and nasty people out there, but before judging perhaps we should consider such things. We might also like to consider that the concept that lies can be elicited because of a fear of being judged and many who lie regularly are judged not because of what they have done but because of the expectations by others that they continue to misbehave or act in the judge's eyes inappropriately. The fallout of deceit can sustain negative attitudes and behaviours even when the person who betrayed the trust has in fact changed their ways.
The point I am making here is that if I become aware that someone is lying to me or has done, then it is, in my view, my responsibility to consider my response to the situation. That is the only thing I have any chance of adjusting. I can't make someone not lie to me. I can't change them or the situation unless they have gained some insight into their behaviours and the repercussions of same and are ready to commit to a course of change.
All I can do to change the dynamic is to behave in a manner which is protective of me and those around me and maintain my own moral and philosophical values. It is important also that whatever I do or say does not reinforce positively or negatively that person's behaviour. If bad enough and the trust is completely gone it is my duty to walk away, if the situation and/or person has not become so intractable that meaningful communication can be had then the long path to forgiveness and acceptance can begin.
It may even be that things evolve to a point whereby there is an acknowledgement that this lie may well have been the best thing that could happen to the connection [would be a pity to lose the lesson in all that pain and reactive moments] - for instance, had the situation not come to a head, attitudes, affections, friendships, etc would never had had the opportunity to become one in which an authentic existence had any potential of being achieved.
Sometimes people do bad things to us. Sometimes life evolves into and out of bad situations. It is a testament to our individual resilience that is born out in our response to each and every one of those events.
Finally... gotta say in my experience and seeking of information from many philosophical, religious, spiritual and psychological books/tomes I am minded that without exception the role of forgiveness is a significant one for all involved.

You only need to encounter one sociopath whose constant lies turned your world upside down to know that lying is virtually never acceptable to anyone with integrity and no one with any self-respect should tolerate lying by others.

Might some people learn how to tolerate lying (if lucky, see through the lies) in order to relate with someone who lies, perhaps criminal, an addict, someone with a mental illness and/or destitute. I hope that a professional at least can do that, without lies "turning their world upside down". This answer points out that lying is conditioned behaviour, an adaption to a person's relationships: so not just "they're lying", but be aware of the relationship between you (but see also "duty to walk away"). However you suggest intolerance ("sociopaths are incurable therefore lying is intolerable").

Maybe a key-word in your comment is "integrity" (i.e. "never acceptable to anyone with integrity"). If someone else lying destroys your integrity then there's the "loss of trust" and "duty to walk away".

If lying is the most appropriate thing to do, then developing the heart of compassion for the tormentors, so that they may not add to their evils by killing the victims, and developing the heart of compassion for the victims so that they may be saved, the aspiring Bodhisattva (please read Shantideva's Bodhisattvaharyavitara) may come forward to lie. By taking on the negative effects of the act, if there be any, upon the self,the Bodhisattva steps forward to save others, and that is the very definition of the Bodhisattva.
The Bodhisattva is not afraid to live countless lives until all are saved, and can face the consequences bravely for their heart is pure and stainless.
When an aspiring Bodhisattva isn't afraid to even lay down their life in the service of others, will the consequence of a lie in this life or in next lives matter?
It is never about the action, but the quality of the heart. Such a pure heart has a way of altering reality. When in the presence of such a resolute and pure heart, the tormentors may themselves turn back. Or, the victims may themselves take the opportunity to practice as Bodhisattvas and appear before their tormentors rather than allow a genuine heart to be hurt. The energy of goodness thus generated will bring out the best in others around it.
Dhammapada Verse 1
Cakkhupalatthera Vatthu
Manopubbangama dhamma
manosettha manomaya
manasa ce padutthena
bhasati va karoti va
tato nam dukkhamanveti
cakkamva vahato padam.
Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.
[source]
Having seen the emptiness of conditioned phenomena such as this life, the aspiring Bodhisattva is unfazed at every turn, guided only by the Dhamma.
Intention matters.

There's the Jataka story about the hungry tigress and her cubs: I didn't know whether that's saying that preserving the tigress' sila by preventing her from eating her cubs is more important than preserving the Bodhisatta's life (and therefore saying that sila is more important than life); or whether it's saying that saving another is more important than saving oneself. I suspect too that we're supposed to somehow see all (Bodhisatta, tigress, and cubs; or tormentors, victim, and self) as in some way equal.

"The Short Essence of True Eloquence" by Je Tsongkhapa, the 13th century Buddhist Pandita is hard to penetrate, but it is the guide to understanding how to make emptiness and relativity work together, and not be captured by either extreme. When one has made relativity and emptiness work together, then all that you say will be simultaneously true. Then the Dhamma becomes the only reality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcaz9HoEpTk  // If we fear for our lives, we are captured by conditions, if we fear for no one's life we are captured by emptiness, avoiding both, we exist in the Dhamma.

Thank you: there's a transcript of it here. You say it's hard to penetrate; I think that the core (excluding the praise) are the three paragraphs which begin "Your position is that when one sees" and end "Nor as existence through intrinsic reality". Another important (relevant to this topic) paragraph, "For the sake of this, You gave away
Again and again during innumerable aeons,
Sometimes body, other times life,
Loved ones, and great wealth of possessions."

This is the best answer from the POV of Mahayana.

Lying is never the correct answer. The answer to this question is explicitly stated in the fourth precept; to refrain from incorrect speech. You lying to "save someone" from some harm or danger will not break them free from the bonds of their karma, all it will do is weaken your own morality, cultivating delusion, aversion, and craving. If someone is to be murdered, they will be murdered. You have no say in this. I don't remember exactly which sutta it was, but the Buddha illustrated this very point. He was walking somewhere with a man, when the Buddha stopped, told the man to go ahead by himself, and the Buddha turned and went the other way. The man was mistaken as a deer by a hunter and shot and killed. When asked why he let the man continue ahead, knowing full well the danger that lie ahead for him, the Buddha said : even if he had gone north, south, east, or west, this man could not escape this fate.

I wonder if there is a difference though, between the Buddha who was fully enlightened and knew the karmic outcome for someone and the rest of us who are just doing the best we can with what we know. Exposing someone to grave danger, as in the example, to avoid breaking a precept seems questionable.

Not lying doesn't mean you have to say anything! Even if it means exposing YOURSELF to danger, you always have the choice to just say nothing at all. If someone else has the intention of ill will to you or others, this is not your problem, it is theirs. Obviously you would not want them to committee any sort of act for their own benefit, but nonetheless at the very worst you'd just end up dead, which you're going to anyways.

@Robin111 - well said, accepting reality as it is, you know the difference between one who knows and one who presupposes.

We do not have a choice when we are faced with this condition, as we are conditioned being! How ever we act (i.e lie, or not lie) if we have not attained the state of an ariya (one of the 4 noble ones) our views are based on (avijja)ignorance or not knowing, because it is base on self ( us and others). Whatever views or actions that results from avijja are simply actions that are based on intentions.
Whereas the views and actions from the noble ones mainly come from wisdom and not intentions (ref somewhere in the Abhidhamma) as they are free from the delusion of self and others.
As kamma is based on our intention then our true intention to lie or not to lie is paramount!
And how does wisdom come about?
From mindfulness (sati), clear-comprehension (sampajanna) arise, from clear-comprehension wisdom (panna) arise.

If I understand the question correctly, it's about the specific situation of lying to try to protect another from harm or something similar. Presumably the intention is basically wholesome. So how does this factor in with wholesome intention vs breaking a precept?

What's the kamma consequences of breaking the precepts? What's the kamma consequence of keeping the precepts & knowing that human lives will be sacrificed? The onus is on knowing, once you know you cannot back out by rationalistation.

Two intentions: one to keep precepts and the other to save lives; Which is the more skilful action (kamma) of the two?

By telling a lie, someone will be saved from death, being allowed to live forever?

What would your answer be if that someone is your close relation, your enemy or just a plain human being? What would you call that act of preventing someone related or not, from probable death, timely or untimely?

@Samadhi I see what your getting at , I'm definatly open to that but what about Metta and the heart and people's current state of suffering? They will be saved from death and still die someday so your karmma has nothing to do they're karma?  With a lie they would be saved from death but they will be saved from suffering also. We have to abide in conseptual reality as well as ultimate reality. How would you feel if you let someone die can you do that because your enlightened? I can't quite see it. A nondoing can be a doing can't it? It is possible both approaches are correct at the same time.

@Samadhi Oops! I meant that last comment to go to Ryan. Sorry about that. I really like your answer. So, an Arahant might lie out of what is just appropriate? Would that be not a wholesome intention?

@Ryan  I see what your getting at , I'm open to that but what about Metta and the heart and people's current state of suffering? They will be saved from death and still die someday so your karma has nothing to do they're karma? With a lie they would be saved from death but they will be saved from suffering also. We have to abide in conceptual reality as well as ultimate reality. How would you feel if you let someone die can you do that because your enlightened? I can't quite see it. A non-doing can be a doing can't it? It is possible both approaches are correct at the same time.

I hope you don't mind a personal story. Perhaps my earliest introduction to any Buddhism would have been my dad reading to me Kim (a novel set in late 19th century India, in which a boy becomes friends and travels with a Tibetan Lama). The other characters are colourful, many of them working for the British secret service and acting against the Russians in Afghanistan. One is a Muslim horse trader.
The Lama (an abbot who has come to India on a pilgrimage) is oblivious to such goings-on, but stops to explain the wheel of life and so on to people if they ask.
Anyway, towards the end and after the action is over, there's a conversation while other sleep between the Lama and the horse trader (who also works as a spy and who leads a complicated life). The contrast and conversation between the two characters is comedy.
Anyway, a fragment of that conversation I've always remembered:

'Thou hast never lied?'
'What need?'
'O Allah, hear him! "What need" in this Thy world! Nor ever harmed a
  man?'
'Once—with a pencase—before I was wise.'

So, when the Lama is asked whether he has ever lied, his question is reply is "what need?"
The chief lesson I got from that was to live a life in which you don't need to lie.
I suppose a secondary lesson is that he (remembering that this is an idealized character in a novel) is willing to ask whether there might be a need, just that now as an old man he hasn't ever found a need yet.

Five things that can’t be done. A mendicant with defilements ended can’t deliberately take the life of a living creature, take something with the intention to steal, have sex, tell a deliberate lie, or store up goods for their own enjoyment like they did as a lay person.
-dn33

According to Buddhism situations such as prosecution of the innocent doesn't happen without a past cause and if it is destined/determined then it becomes unavoidable. Maha Moggalanna was hunted by villains due to his past life actions and there was no way to escape even by means of magical powers let alone lowly trickery. Therefore lying to avoid bad things from happening simply doesn't work and is counter effective.

In summary an enlightened monk deliberately lying is not possible or non-existent.

If one lied with pure intention how could it generate negative karma? Is there something inherent in lying that causes a cosmic retribution? Or is the motivation or intent of the mind doing the lying that is the deciding factor?

I say it is the intent that is the deciding factor with one very very important caveat: wisdom. That is if one acts with an otherwise pure intent but lacks wisdom to discern the effects of ones action, then any pure intent will be based upon ignorance. And any intent based upon ignorance cannot be pure.

Therefore, if a Realized One with perfectly pure intent and perfectly pure wisdom understanding the complete ramifications of action chose to speak a “lie”, then by definition it could not be a lie.

This is only so precisely because no “lie” is an inherently existing lie, but rather lies - like all things - are completely empty of inherent existence.

"There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says, 'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I have seen.'

[1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. [4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/index.html

if you don't devote yourself fully to truth then no attainment of the truth can be expected because the mind will never incline to it as long as it holds that truth is sometimes not all that important. Mind has to love truth above all, seek and thirst for it, only then does it become an inclination of the mind in a definitive sense.

btw i think it's very worrying that you milk it to that extent when you have so many explicit passages saying lying cannot happen and you then question the defnition of the word to the extent that according to you Buddha can lie but it's not a lie if he does it when texts say 'he can't lie' you say 'he can lie but it's not a lie if he does it' which is obviously same as saying Buddha can intentionally take a being's life but it's not murder if he does it, he can have sexual intercourse but it doesn't count per definition...

These kind of assertions need to meet extremely high burden of proof and actually overcome the proof by contradiction made explicit in the texts. Also if you look at the passage, it says Buddha does not speak those words, it doesn't say he doesn't lie, so you need to explain how a Buddha would "lie" without uttering untrue words. Also in how you rely on emptiness to support these wrong views, it makes me suspect you misapprehended something very crucial.

To answer your question, one can not lie with pure intention, it is not possible. Being prompted to lie is always based on delusion. If one thinks i will lie for benefit of self or another, it will turn out that it was detrimental for both in the big scheme of things. I thought this was made clear by Maha Moggalana's actions in past life bearing fruition as unavoidable prosecution.

There was a discussion in medieval Tientai about whether the Buddha was capable of evil - which I assume includes lying - as skilful means.
The monks who claimed he was, won the argument.
In general, I would advise lying if you really have to, at least in order to keep the other precepts (to save a life is the standard example of a virtuous lie)

There is a lot of utilitarian answers given here, I mean an approval to lie to save a life.
If the measure of virtue is to save a life, how about telling a lie to get killed a mass murderer like Hitler? will that count for you all a virtuous act?
The all-knowing is free of attachment and doesn't lie.
The Buddha is all-knowing (Sabbannuta Nana) and has no attachment and doesn't lie.
The Buddha is all-knowing ( Sabbannuta Nana) there is nothing wrong in saying that.. But it is very wrong to say the Buddha is a liar! which most of the answers provided here gravitated to.

I have read in one of the suttas , don’t remember where, that one should not lie even for a joke. It makes sense to me because we as Buddhists are married to the Truth. If we start lying then what should we expect from commoners ? Having said that we have the right to remain silent. We can refuse to answer questions especially if somebody’s life is under danger. Or we can help guide the prepetrators of crime to avoid it. That is what Buddha would have done.

Nice to see a sensible answer among wicked people giving wicked advice

I believe that's in the Vinaya, I don't know about its being in a sutta. Although apparently "outrageous lies meant as jokes—to amuse rather than to deceive" aren't an "offense" because it's not a lie if there is no intention to deceive. But teasing people and sarcasm are forbidden. https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0016.html

If you're married to X then can you put X down or has clinging arisen? Mindfully misinforming  someone is not the same thing as abandoning truth.

Being labeled a liar by the world is not your karma. Saying "oh but then your a liar and nobody will trust you even if you lied for wholesome reasons.",  is a blatant intellectualization that is not Dhamma.

It seems obvious to me that a lot of people posting answers in here have never actually been in an opportunity to protect the innocent when questioned by a corrupt entity.
I work for an entity. There is an employee with cancer. This employee walks with a cane at work because they are currently undergoing radiation treatment. They continue coming to work even though they have trouble doing anything and are extremely fatigued. It's heartbreaking to watch because this individual was very full of life before. This individual is afraid of losing their job because then they would not have insurance.
My brother is this person's manager. He is allowing this person to work four hours a day and sleep the rest of the day but is counting it as full time on the books so that this person doesn't have to pay for their insurance. The payroll knows this is happening and is looking the other way.
There is an employee who works with the cancer employee. This second employee is now repeatedly asking pointed questions to payroll about how sick time, vacation time, and full time hours work. It is fairly obvious that this employee plans to go to the top level and complain about what my brother and payroll are allowing to happen.
I am in a position where if the highest level finds out that payroll has been looking the other way, and payroll denies it, I will likely be asked if payroll knew this was happening. If I am asked, I plan to lie. I will accept the karma generated by ensuring this little bit of humanity necessary to keep my coworker from losing their job and dying.
Edit: there will probably be responses mentioning that the employee will likely get fired anyway, or will die even if they don't get fired. That I might lose my job for lying. These things are not the point. Buddhism is not nihilism.

How does this answer relate to Buddhism?

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


text:
Karma, right effort, letting go, heroic sacrifices: what's the right thing to do?
Isn't there a story where the Buddha accosts a monk who's bleeding from performing walking meditation for too long, and tells him practice must be like a Veena's string - not too tight, not too loose? i.e the middle way
Yet, I remember a story in the Dhammapada (Verse 1) about a monk who refused to take his eye medicine because he had vowed to not lie down for three months and remain practicing full time. Since the medicine wasn't effective unless taken lying down, he lost his eyes.
The text says he simultaneously lost his vision and gained his vision - i.e. he became an arahant by practicing so arduously. The Buddha peeks into his past lives, and says Karma dictates that he must lose his eyes in this lifetime for sins of the past.
It maybe so, but it was also his good karma to have access to medicine in this lifetime is it not?
Leaving everything to Karma has me confused - because if that is so, then why practice, even enlightenment if it is in our karma will be obtained without effort. Gautama the Buddha was certainly going to become a Buddha, his Buddhahood had been foretold, so why did he practice?
Second, what's with the open praise of macho effort right at the start of the Dhammapada? What happened to the middle way?
This is not an isolated instance, there are several stories about heroic efforts from monks. The most famous must be the version where Bodhidharma plucks out his eyelids. There's also another version where he loses his legs to atrophy by not moving for nine years.
I got to thinking about this after reading this question about monks and exercise. I am reminded of "A path with heart", by Jack Kornfield, where the author, himself a Buddhist monk under Ajahn Chah for several years talks about exercise and several other normal healthy things monks ignore in order to pursue enlightenment single mindedly. He recounts interviewing several monks who suffered from diabetes and other lifestyle diseases that came from not eating healthy food, from not exercising, from developing an aversion to their body and consequently not caring enough.
I'm interested in hearing opinions in general, or an answer that can reconcile the two if possible. Thanks.

My understanding was he became an arahant due to letting go, not due to the intensity of his practice. He knew full well the consequences of his action, and by letting go of clinging to his body and eye faculty he was liberated.

Sure, but why not let go of desire for enlightenment too - in fact, that is how Ven. Ananda gets liberated, by letting go of his desire for enlightenment. I am not saying I don't entirely get the paradoxical thinking, but still it does get a bit confusing at times.

p.s. I get the distinction you make, and it is a valid one.

Can you give a reference to the verse 1 story? The verse 1 story that I've found is this one which doesn't include the part of the story about not lying down.

@ChrisW www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZZiE-EofAE - it is explained in detail by Ven. Yuttadhammo - about minute 7-8

IMHO:
"..his Buddhahood had been foretold, so why did he practice? "
In the foretelling of his future, his future practice has also been seen but not mentioned. It is his practice in the past and the future which leads him to become a Buddha. He cannot not practice in the future, because that is his conditioning from the past.
If we see kamma as conditioning/tendencies and particularly good tendencies then we can leave it all to kamma and concentrate on the unskilful tendencies in the present, changing them to skilful tendencies for the present and future.
The middle way is between two personal extremes and that is relative. So we can say that what looks like heroic to mere mortals is just the middle way for Bodhisattvas and Maha Arahants.
For serious practitioners what matters in the end is the result of the state of their mind rather than their body. We can't tell by the end state of their body, the state of the mind, nor can we tell how much each one has to scarify or exert himself to attain liberation; but that he do the utmost he can.
The answer is that we cannot tell from observation of a person's practice whether he is practising in the middle way. That has been the case since the Buddha's time and in almost all cases the Buddha praise those who exert themselves.
We find our own middle way to practice and leave it all to kamma (present skilful action) and vipaka (past conditioning/tendencies/seeds)

"Isn't there a story where the Buddha accosts a monk who's bleeding from performing walking meditation for too long, and tells him practice must be like a Veena's string - not too tight, not too loose? i.e the middle way"
The string story is in AN 6.55.
"Yet, I remember a story in the Dhammapada (Verse 1) about a monk who refused to take his eye medicine because he had vowed to not lie down for three months and remain practicing full time. Since the medicine wasn't effective unless taken lying down, he lost his eyes.
The text says he simultaneously lost his vision and gained his vision - i.e. he became an arahant by practicing so arduously."
It seems this story is not described in Dhammapada, but in a commentary? I could not find a full text of it.
"The Buddha peeks into his past lives, and says Karma dictates that he must lose his eyes in this lifetime for sins of the past."
I've never found this kind of wording in any sutta: "karma dictates" or "because of karma, he must". Describing karma in this way is not only at odds with the actual karma doctrine taught by the Buddha, but he also criticized the idea that "karma dictates": it would be impossible to anyone to live the holy life, become an arahant, become a Buddha, if that was the case.
"Leaving everything to Karma has me confused - because if that is so, then why practice, even enlightenment if it is in our karma will be obtained without effort. Gautama the Buddha was certainly going to become a Buddha, his Buddhahood had been foretold, so why did he practice?"
The questioning above is similar to the way the Buddha often debunked this very idea.

"Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.
-- AN 3.99

A book I would suggest here is Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching (besides the suttas where karma law is taught).
"Second, what's with the open praise of macho effort right at the start of the Dhammapada? What happened to the middle way?"
It's less about macho, and more about determination.
Also "middle way" does not mean avoiding anything one may personally consider to be "extreme". When this denomination is used by the Buddha, he is either talking about avoiding specific sterile and false/incorrect extremes:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
-- SN 56.11

...or explaining how this is his strategy of teaching:

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: : From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications ...
-- SN 12.15

"This is not an isolated instance, there are several stories about heroic efforts from monks. The most famous must be the version where Bodhidharma plucks out his eyelids. There's also another version where he loses his legs to atrophy by not moving for nine years."
Though Zen has the habit of increasing the dramatic effects a noch, still, it's how determination is conveyed. Underlying this intense determination is a sense of urgency, often produced by an experience of insight into the dhamma.
So, it's not about heroism -- not in the western sense. Nor about sacrifices. The kind of sacrifices praised by the Buddha are sacrifices of unwholesome acts of body speech and mind. Are sacrifices related to the household life, and so on.
It was pointed out that physical pain may significantly affect one's mind in a karmic way. But mostly as an explanation of the law of karma, not as a practice to be undertaken -- that is, to inflict pain in oneself. (I don't remember the sutta, unfortunately; it's a passage where the Buddha says someone who undergoes a lot of pain may find him/her self reappearing in a better realm because of that).
"I got to thinking about this after reading this question about monks and exercise. I am reminded of "A path with heart", by Jack Kornfield, where the author, himself a Buddhist monk under Ajahn Chah for several years talks about exercise and several other normal healthy things monks ignore in order to pursue enlightenment single mindedly. He recounts interviewing several monks who suffered from diabetes and other lifestyle diseases that came from not eating healthy food, from not exercising, from developing an aversion to their body and consequently not caring enough."
As far as their body negligence, from the point of view of Buddhism (and of the path to Nirvana) these monks are blameless or not depending on their intention. The bodily pain (or what one could see as a "sacrifice") produced by these health disorders alone is not necessarily praiseworthy or blameworthy -- though it could present itself as an obstacle which could have been avoided. Finally, their suffering depends on their skill and maturity.

I want to say something, not about karma but about doing it now.
The middle way notwithstanding, perhaps it was essential to the Buddha's own enlightenment. I don't know in which sutta this appears, but this narration of the life of the Buddha by Bikkhu Bodhi says,

Now he was alone, and complete solitude allowed him to pursue his quest undisturbed. One day, when his physical strength had returned, he approached a lovely spot in Uruvela by the bank of the Nerañjara River. Here he prepared a seat of straw beneath an asvattha tree (later called the Bodhi Tree) and sat down cross-legged, making a firm resolution that he would never rise up from that seat until he had won his goal. As night descended [etc.]

Thiago's answer says something about Zen and 'urgency'. That 'urgency' reminds me of a word I like, 'akalika' which meaning 'timeless' means immediately, without delay, continuous and eternal (and the absence of kalika).
Anyway, maybe the following is a Zen story which helps to illustrate: Three Days More

The teaching that the string on the stringed musical instrument must not be too taut or too loose, but it should be tuned precisely, is taught in the Sona Sutta. The middle path is also expounded in the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta (below) and discussed in this answer. I believe that the Buddha was very firm on the middle path teaching.

"Monks, these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has
  gone forth from the household life. (What are the two?) There is
  addiction to indulgence of sense-pleasures, which is low, coarse, the
  way of ordinary people, unworthy, and unprofitable; and there is
  addiction to self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy, and
  unprofitable.
"Avoiding both these extremes, the Tathagata (The Perfect One) has
  realized the Middle Path; it gives vision, gives knowledge, and leads
  to calm, to insight, to enlightenment and to Nibbana. And what is that
  Middle Path realized by the Tathagata...? It is the Noble Eightfold
  path, and nothing else ...

However, you found the story of Cakkhupāla Thera which is here and here. You have got the story right, but I think you have misinterpreted the Buddha's reply as to why Ven. Cakkhupāla is blind despite being an arahat.
The Buddha said "As a result of this evil deed the physician lost his eyesight many times in his later existences." He did not say, "he did not take his medicine in this life and therefore became blind due to his past karma". Ven. Cakkhupāla definitely had the free will to accept or reject the medication, and this is not impaired by his past evil deed.
On the other hand, we can say that he contracted the eye infection due to his past evil deed. If he had taken the medication, we still do not know whether he would end up cured or blind. Even if he was cured, he might still become blind later. Hence, there is no relationship between his decision to not take the medicine and his past evil deed.
Ven. Cakkhupāla's decision to not take medication, could be considered a form of self-mortification which may or may not be related to him achieving Nirvana. The Buddha did not comment about this. He only commented on how the arahat could be blind - the reason is his past deeds. And this only explains why he contracted the eye infection in this life.
Furthermore, the Buddha says that not everything that we experience is the result of our past karma, in the Sivaka Sutta (below) and also discussed in this answer. Hence, Ven. Cakkhupāla rejecting his medicine or Gautama choosing to search for enlightenment is not completely the result of their karma. They had their own free will too, in their last lives. It is only that Gautama's past karma contributed towards his strong inclination towards enlightenment but did not absolutely fate him to it.

"There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

Yes, there may be stories of Buddhist monks who did not take care of their health or practised extreme ways in pursuit of enlightenment. But this does not meet Buddha's teaching of the middle path. The Vinaya rules laid down by the Buddha for monks, allows monks to have meals before noon daily, and also allows monks to take medicine at any time of the day for their illnesses. Hence, we must accept that this is inline with Buddha's middle path teaching, as laid down for monks.
The will and determination to achieve enlightenment can be strong but the middle path should still be followed. How would music be created, if the string is too taut or too loose?

Great Question Buddho!
It is true, the middle way is always the best way. I think your understanding of Karma however may be slightly off the mark. This can all be explained in terms of qualities and quantities. The monk who lost his eyes in replace for the vision of enlightenment seems slightly absurd, losing your eyes due to bad karma however can be the case.
Here is why: If this person committed a terrible deed in their last life of lets say gauging someone's eyes out it would seem fitting that they lost their eyes in that life or the next. The bad karma however is not so Solid! If this person in the next life worked very hard to do good things for people and the earth than they could attain enlightenment without losing their eyesight! If they live a quite a good life but still have defilements this person might get cataracts instead of losing their eyes. If however, this person lives a life with no intention to remove defilements than they may very well lose their eyes. Does this make a man who sits for so long that he loses his eyes an enlightened being? Surely not. Meditation is helpful for gaining insight, better concentration, patience and contentment which are all good qualities. But if you want to generate good karma and in doing so remove bad karma, than you must work hard to improve the beings and planet around you. Buddhists refer to karma as 'action' and because 'action' is happening all the time than 'your' action or 'your' karma is also happening all the time. Work hard to do good and you will become a good karmic being, regardless of your passed sins. The only variable that you have to be concerned with is the weight of your passed sins, if they are heavy like killing than you will have to work extremely hard to redeem yourself. This is opposed to people who don't have heavy sins, and so your bad karma will need to be overthrown by your good karma before you are to achieve enlightenment. But you certainty don't have to lose your eyesight in order to do so!
Hope this helps :)


text:
How would one recognise if a Buddhist group is a cult?
How would one recognise if a sangha or Buddhist group is a cult or has cult type tendencies. Are there well established things to look out for? Are there cult type behaviours or patterns that would be particularly linked with Buddhism or are all cults broadly similar irrespective of their religious inspiration?
We have tried to answer questions about cults before here and here however these questions have been closed down as too opinion based. However I'm hoping by broadening the scope and moving it away from any one group it may help to keep this more objective. Also I would imagine that there are scholarly studies in this area so I'm hoping that this will also assist in objectivity.
As a side note I'm aware that the term cult is a controversial and emotionally weighted term. It's difficult to get a good definition but I found one here that seems reasonable

A group or movement is theologically a cult if it identifies itself as
  belonging to a mainstream, recognized religion — and yet rejects or
  otherwise violates one or more of the central, essential teachings of
  that religion.

however I welcome any other definitions too.

What would you think of closing this question and taking it to the Chat room instead?

Related question here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2677/what-are-the-main-warning-signs-in-a-buddhist-centre

I  would leave this question open and monitor the answers provided. There is room for answers as to ascertain whether an organisation or following when considered as a cult is based on theological or sociological reason. Cults exist, which ever definition we use.

As there are many definitions of cult and there are many forms of Buddhist organisation/philosophy of practice, adopting a particular accepted definition of cult would put certain organisation within it. The negative emotional association with extremely unhealthy cults should not be associated with all definitions of cults.

Some Buddhist organisation exist to cater for the needs of particular groups of individual and especially in the Mahayana context it is the practice of Upaya (skilful means), when there is no coercion, exploitation and abuse. Upaya necessarily leads to cult organisations.

@ChrisW happy to chat. My motivations about asking this question was to maybe work towards a canonical answer to the cult questions that we could point people to when they are curious or worried about the cult issue

The Chinese Buddhists sort of have a similar concept-- "outer path" or "tiirthika", which is sort like heretic or just "not Buddhist".  A lot of traditional texts seem to tolerate or encourage what us modern westerners would see as excessive on some dimension and would trigger people to use the word cult.

The term is vague and (perhaps except in academic history of religion usage) pejorative.
See Cult for a partial list of organizations/adjectives associated with the word 'cult':

socially deviant
novel
acts of violence
excessive devotion
faith healing
heresy (unorthodoxy)
sexual abuse
financial extortion
possibly criminal

The word "cult" has always been controversial because it is (in a pejorative sense) considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices, which lacks a clear or consistent definition.

See also Stigmatization and discrimination
If you use the word, it's likely to be understood as having some pejorative meaning, but what that meaning is isn't clear.
If you must say something critical of another person or another group, I think you should at least try to be clear/specific about what crime[s] or other defect you accuse them of, and therefore not say "cult".

Everyday absorption in Samsara or conditioned reality as practiced by 99% of the population could be termed a cult too. There's excessive devotion to materialism from which all criminal and negative acts arise.

Some answers from the suttas (emphasis mine):

Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: 'In a certain dwelling place live many elders, very learned, who have learned the traditions, who are bearers of the Teaching, bearers of the Discipline, bearers of the Tabulation, I have heard this directly from those elders, directly I learned it: "This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation."' Those monks’ speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.
If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: 'Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by those elders,' and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: 'Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by those elders.' This, monks, is the third Great Referral you should bear in mind.
-- Mahāparinibbāna sutta, DN 16

and:

[...] "What is the cause, lord, what is the reason, why before there were fewer training rules and yet more monks established in final gnosis, whereas now there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis?"
"That's the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis. There is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. Just as there is no disappearance of gold as long as a counterfeit of gold has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of gold when a counterfeit of gold has arisen in the world, in the same way there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. [...]
"These five downward-leading qualities tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma. Which five? There is the case where the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live without respect, without deference, for the Teacher. They live without respect, without deference, for the Dhamma... for the Sangha... for the Training... for concentration. These are the five downward-leading qualities that tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma.
-- SN 16.13

The line between cults and regular groups is not always clear cut.  Groups are more or less cultish, so judgment must be exercised as to what level of cultish behavior you are willing to tolerate.
But what denotes cultish behavior?  Here's a good checklist for starters.
What about Buddhist-specific cults?  Here are some questions to ask...

Does the leader claim to be Enlightened?
Does the leader behave immorally?
Is the leader's immoral behavior praised as "crazy wisdom"?
Are people exploited under the guise of "transcending their egos"?
Are there levels of initiation/practice?

If you encounter one of the above, be on alert.  If you encounter multiple instances, then run for the hills.
BTW, my use of #1 may distress some.  Don't I think Enlightenment exists?  I'm not sure... I think we can be more or less enlightened, but I'm suspicious of Enlightenment as an all-or-nothing claim.  Often, this becomes a claim of infallibility which is then used as a pretext to exploit people and is the driving force behind the transgressions of cults. So generally, if someone claims they're enlightened, I assume they're full of it.

I would say that the definition of a Cult is that it is ultimately: 1. Self-serving 2. Harms people, and justifies itself for doing so. So you would need to look for wrongful benefit and wrongful harm. Do they follow the eight-fold path?

This is from the linked article: "Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s)."   Hmm...meditation and chanting...we're all in trouble. ;-)

Are you saying people must, should, or might be willing to tolerate some (moderate) level of "more or less cultish" behaviour (and if so, what does that mean)?

@ChrisW  I'm saying there's often no hard and fast distinction between cult and not-cult, and instead many organizations exist on a continuum.  Therefore, rather than asking what is and isn't a cult, one might instead see how cultish any organization is and decide whether this is acceptable.

This Controversial 'Buddhist' Teachers & Groups page
includes these references in its "Useful information in English" section:

Freedom of Mind Center; quite a collection of information on cults and their page on cults in general, explaining the BITE model
How to spot a Buddhist cult
Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment by Geoffrey D. Falk available in print and as free e-book (see bottom of page)
Sex and the Spiritual Teacher by Scott Edelstein
Relating to a Spiritual Teacher: Building a Healthy Relationship by Alex Berzin (also known under its new title: Wise teacher, wise student: Tibetan Approaches to a Healthy Relationship) available in print and as free e-book

This page (probably the whole web site) is mostly about Tibetan Buddhism.
It also links to Zen teachers issue open letter confronting abuse from which you can read about some similar problems within Western Zen.
I hope you will not need such information.

This is a different angle; but one worth considering as part of this overall topic. This is a passage from the Visuddhimagga page 110-111.

Three bhikkhus came to the elder, it seems. One of them said, “Venerable sir,
  I am ready to fall from a cliff the height of one hundred men, if it is said to be to
  your advantage.” The second said, “Venerable sir, I am ready to grind away this
  body from the heels up without remainder on a flat stone, if it is said to be to your
  advantage.” The third said, “Venerable sir, I am ready to die by stopping breathing,if it is said to be to your advantage.” Observing, “These bhikkhus are certainly
  capable of progress,” the elder expounded a meditation subject to them. Following
  his advice, the three attained Arahantship.
  This is the benefit in self-dedication. Hence it was said above “dedicating himself
  to the Blessed One, the Enlightened One, or to a teacher.”

If we today, found out that our cousin, or brother-in-law or whomever was making statements that they were willing to die for their religious teacher; we might rush to judgment that they had become involved in a cult. We might be terribly concerned about this situation. And yet, in the Visuddhimagga, this story is being told to show the benefit of having such extraordinary dedication.
There are two points of view regarding cults; the point of view of the person who is participating in the group and the point of view of concerned outsiders. It can be easy for outsiders to pass judgement particularly when things are new or strange of if there is a cultural overlay to Buddhist practice that's not well understood by outsiders.
So to put it simply if you are worried about someone else being involved in a Buddhist cult; take it slow and give it time. There is a huge variety of traditions in Buddhism and some seem very strange to newcomers and outsiders. Time will tell whether this association is good or bad for the individual.
If you are worried about yourself having become involved in a Buddhist cult, trust your gut feeling. If you feel too much is being asked of you in terms of money, time, dedication, or anything that makes you uncomfortable; leave and find a place that's better suited for you. Doesn't really matter if it's a cult by definition or not, it only matters that it's not the right place for you and time to move on.
I really appreciate @MatthewMartin 's comment above:

The Chinese Buddhists sort of have a similar concept-- "outer path" or "tiirthika", which is sort like heretic or just "not Buddhist". A lot of traditional texts seem to tolerate or encourage what us modern westerners would see as excessive on some dimension and would trigger people to use the word cult. –  MatthewMartin

as trying to fit the vastness of Buddhism into a Western mindset regarding cults is very elusive.
It's good to see this thread here because it seems to be an ongoing concern and glad to have an opportunity to present this aspect as well. :)

According to Wikipedia Tirthika means literally "non-Buddhist", e.g. Jain. I think the corresponding Chinese dictionary entry is 外道 (use "guest" as the login to that dictionary).

Zopa Rinpoche wants to stop eathquaks with his mind. Gomdes Lamas go arround making ceromonies to make retreat guests in wealthy countries like Denmark Rich.
Ar the same time People WHO have been through horrible Abuse and seek hope in the compasionate Ways of Buddha, are made out to be crazy disgusting inhumans, at the same time the frase keeps ringing " we are all the same".
If you see major distatefull contradictions in a Group. Then find another place.
The original forms of buddhism Doesnt haven't  gone so wrong


text:
Is listening to a Dharma talk while walking considered a form of walking meditation?
Sometimes when I take a break from work and walk through a nature path, I listen to a podcast called Zencast which is a collection of hundreds of Dharma talks by dozens of teachers over the decades such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Gil Fronsdal spanning a wide array of topics, such as Five Hindrances, mindfulness, meditation, etc. I highly recommend it, it's a great way to consume teachings on an iPod. When I do this, I am present with body in nature and with mind in enlightened knowledge, but is this technically a technique for a walking meditation?

Yes I often do either this while waking or while sitting in meditation. I also meditate with focus on the breath.

See also http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1795/157 for a related discussion

You should specify what kind of meditation. If Vipassana (insight meditation), then very definitely not.

Yes, in walking meditation we can use any of the 40 objects of meditation.
Listening to Dhamma talks would put it under recollection of the dhamma  as it gave you a sense of appreciation of the truth of the dhamma, IMHO,rather than the investigation of Dhamma (Dhammavicaya).

"Mahanama, you should develop this recollection of the Dhamma while you are walking, while you are standing, while you are sitting, while you are lying down, while you are busy at work, while you are resting in your home crowded with children.

That appears to be the definitive answer. Thank you. And I hope I am not misspelling "Dharma" in my question or I will edit.

Dharma is Sanskrit, Dhamma is phonetic Pali - preferred by Paliglots.

Thanks for the clarification, I need to learn more about them, just one of the reasons I created an account.

I guess it depends on your motivation for meditation. If you are meditating to relax, than your doing a darn good job of it :). However if you are meditating to gain insight, you may or may not be doing so. This is from my own experience of the dharma and I too enjoy Thich Nhat Hanh, as well as Jon Kabat Zinn, Yuttadhammo bhikku etc. I think though, as far as listening to teachers, they can only motivate you to practice. Unfortunately the motivation to practice and the practice itself are definitely two different things. Some research of telepathy suggests that even just listening to teachers can create a connection with them but in the end however, you must walk the path alone. The path includes everything around you though :) and is the most beautiful thing ever! Would you rather be connected to your teachers in that moment your passing wildlife or the beautiful wildlife itself? I'm sure you can answer this one, but remember! enjoying nature comes at a cost, she may ask you to fertilise her once and a while and trim those overgrown hedges!
Anyways hope this helps :)


text:
Did nuns participate in the councils?
Are there any records of this? Though I'm more curious about the first council, I'm generally curious about their participation in any of them.

The Ariyas are "breast born" sons and daughters of the Buddha and they sometimes address each other as elder brother or sister as a mark of respect, according to their accomplishments.
Given that it is a council of Arahants, would it even occur to them to notice  that there is a distinction, even in terms of class or sex amongst them, and that distinction is marked enough to make a separate representative body, which participation somehow adds or detracts something on the authority of the council?
The council of Arahants would look more suspicious if it was thought that some of those distinctions were relevant and recorded.
The patimokkha is different, in that, later it was made up of ariyas and putthujannas and the rules of the women were slightly different and more than the men.

Indeed, one of the marks of enlightenment is a loss of gender identity.

The History of the Bhikkhuni Sangha
by Dr. Chatsumarn Kabilsingh (as well as another like it by Dhammananda bhikkhuni) says that their presence at the first council wasn't recorded (what was recorded was the council's making Ananda apologize for introducing women into the sangha).
It also says,

I have doubts that only men-five hundred male arhats-were at this council. On uposatha days every new and full moon, the bhikkhunis would recite their Patimokkha Sutta apart from the monks. I believe that technically, it could not be possible for the monks to recite the Patimokkha Sutta of the nuns, and so bhikkhunis must have been present at the First Council. The recorders, who were all monks, may not have thought it important to mention their presence. Some monks have been kind enough to speak about this point: recently, a Sri Lankan monk told me that he too did not think that only men attended the First Council.

The official account says "no".

Actually, monks are obliged to memorize the Bhikkhuni patimokkha as well... given the remote location of the council, I can't think of a reason to suppose Bhikkhunis attended... it's not like the entire Bhikkhu sangha attended either.


text:
Why does Mara, the Evil One one comes looking for consciousness at death?
Is this explained in the Pali Canon?

Then the Blessed One went with a large number of monks to the Black Rock on the slope of Isigili. From afar he saw Ven. Vakkali lying dead on a couch. Now at that time a smokiness, a darkness was moving to the east, moving to the west, moving to the north, the south, above, below, moving to the intermediate directions. The Blessed One said, “Monks, do you see that smokiness, that darkness …?” “Yes, Lord.” “That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman: “Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman established?” But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that Vakkali the clansman has become totally unbound.”— SN 22:87

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.87

In many cases Mara the Evil One appears when he realises that someone somewhere is about to escape from his grips, when they are practising ardently, about to attain enlightenment, and his purpose is to arouse fear, trepidation, and so on to disrupt their practice.Kassaka Sutta,Brahma-nimananika Sutta,Soma Sutta,Sister Vajira Sutta etc..
IMHO Mara is searching to see if Vakkali has actully escape from him. If Mara has to search, that means that that consciousness has already gone beyond his domain.

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_(demon)

Mara personifies unwholesome impulses, unskillfulness, the "death" of the spiritual life. He wants to be a tempter, distracting humans from practicing the spiritual life by making mundane things alluring, or the negative seem positive.

The question is about Mrtyu-mara who identifies with death (in the sense of the ceaseless round of birth and death) but Mara is more generally a metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence. The Pali canon nowhere gives Mara a skilful reason for his actions and instead suggests Mara's existence is nothing more than a samsaric error that vanishes upon Enlightenment.
The whole story of Buddha's confrontation with Mara is a mythological development that is not seen in the Pali canon except that phrases in some of the later parts such as Mara's army (Marasena), Mara's assembly (Maraparisa), victor of Mara (Marabhibhu) imply that the legend was then known. Rhys Davids has attempted to see in the Mara story "a subjective experience under the form of objective reality". The struggle with Mara was really a psychological struggle with secular temptations.
G.C.Pande, Studies in The Origins of Buddhism, p.381

I don't know: if you search for "Mara" on accesstoinsight there are several search results.

Without sounding too general or non-specific, but Mara is always there. That is why pain and suffering can occur anywhere at anytime. That is why we must practise mindfulness through meditation.In doing so, we limit Mara's opportunities from our ignorance!
If you think of death and rebirth on a sensory level, then if ignorance occurs during the changing of seeing,hearing,smelling, tasting..etc- death and rebirth of one moment to the next- then Mara is everpresent!!
It seems crazy, the fixation we have on the physical death when the physical death can only be observered sensorily...so, the question could be; Is the physical just an illusional construct which brings untold amounts of pain and suffering?...unless realised!!
Metta


text:
What is the mental factor of Adhimokkkha (determination) use for?
I am interested in what many ways Adhimokkha(determination) is used in meditation or other purposes in different traditions.

Is adhimokkha the same as "Resolution" from the 10 paramis?

Yes, it's the same and important enough to be developed into a parami. :)

In the Mahasi tradition (and perhaps others), resolutions are used when training the mind so that a certain type of insight (vipassana stage) arises during the practice -- most often the supramundane stage (cessation/fruition, magga-phala-nana), but also the lower stages (from A&P up to equanimity). The object of the resolution is stated in the mind (or aloud) before the practice, then let go. See Mahasi's great Practical Insight Meditation for details on that.