text:
How can I respond to Christians' unpleasant feedback on Buddhism?
I have some friends who are Christian that I can't avoid the subject with. We used to see each other very often for some events. Normally those are friends of friends. Examples of the unpleasant feedback I commonly receive include things like "Buddha is Satan", "Buddha is in hell" and "All Buddhist shall go to hell". There are many other examples and by - for example - searching YouTube, you'll find more than enough examples.
I am looking for some efficient and effective response to avoid this unfruitful conversation and prevent more unpleasant conversation that won't benefit anyone. It's better to have a compassionate discussions instead.
Below are some responses that I came up with:

Oh my God? So far Buddha didn't do me any harm me yet. I will be taking extra precautions for this. Thanks for the concern.

Oh my God? My understanding, based on personally hearing the story from both sides, is that roughly 80% of the teachings of Christianity have a counterpart in Buddhism which has a similar interpretation. How come Satan is teaching the same morals as God?

Oh my God? Where in the Bible is it written so?

I felt hurt that you say Buddha is Satan. In a few cases they will insist to talk on this and ignore my feeling. Not sure they feel righteous to say so on their side?

Oh my God. Can I excuse myself to wash room for some emergency? If talk again and go again.

Post notes:
Thanks guys, there is a chat discussion regarding this with another Christian. If you are interested, let me know and I will add you. I do respect Jesus and Buddha a lot and I hope there is no comment that leads to a battlefield. I will keep my sincere prayers for forgiveness from Jesus and others too if there is unpleasant feeling to others too due to this questions. Really sorry folks.

You are trying to send binary to a server that is only coded to read hexadecimal.  There’s no way that your information is going to be understood.

Those whom study on other culture or high wisdom won't do this. Not all Christian like that

All of your proposed responses are disingenuous, so I would avoid them. Instead, how about you just ignore these friends and don't engage? (Immediately change the subject to something completely unrelated.) There is little to be gained by arguing or engaging with dogmatic Christians.

I have known somebody- actually a pastor of the dancing-in-the-aisles variety- who was happy to describe Wiccans he'd met as "basically good people". I'm sure he would have described at least some Buddhists in similar terms, so be assured that not all Christians are like your so-called friends. All I can suggest is that you tolerate their abuse with dignity and set a good example by your behaviour... and that you're somewhat more careful regarding the company you keep.

The 'Good Samaritan' was neither Jewish nor Christian, but according to the Christian bible, Jesus held him up as an example of the kind of person who would go to heaven.

My response to all of those would be, "Maybe, but Jesus loves him". (Because that's what a Christian must believe).

Thanks guys, there is a chat discussion regarding this with another Christian .. if you are interested,  let me know then I will add u . I do respect Jesus and Buddha a lot, hope there is no comment that lead to battlefield.

strong feeling wrong question being asked. Will sincerely pray for Jesus forgiveness, really sorry folks. Let me know if wanna continue in a chat.

May I urge you not to begin your response to a Christian with the phrase, "Oh, my God"? Many Christians will find this offensive.

@Kramii Will take note of it.

When I read C.S. Lewis's statement that Hinduism is better than Buddhism I wondered how that would go over with today's public. But that's pretty tame compared to this.

Somehow I don't think these friends are interested in a theological debate, they're being plain rude and disrespectful, be it Buddha is Satan or any other prophet or figure of importance. I'd be curious to see the answer to this question if asked on the interpersonal relations stack

it is very obvious this link been shared over FB or so ever social platform to reach over 5k views.. i think i should become a youtuber

@TomJNowell u can use your wording if you would like to share similar stuff there but dont share my link here.. i think it's getting very famous now with over 5k views.. i m not intended to be famous here.. thanks – little star 20 mins ago

@littlestar You posted your question on a public forum, and on one that promotes questions through the Hot Questions list on the side. As much as I understand your desire to discuss this question only along like-minded individuals, this isn't the right place for this, and you will have to live with outsiders reading it.

@xLeitix just dont copy and paste my wording then. Just assume it's a sharing of religion study then

@littlestar public words are public, and all content on the site is licensed under cc-by-sa https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing, if you don't want your words to be shared publicly you shouldn't share them publicly

Then use the link or my words as for positive outcome and good deed religion study. I have no intention to get famous, or to correct other Religion Theology at all by the way and thanks for the invite from Christian for my future path. @Tom J Nowell

The people as described in the question seem, according to the question, neither sincerely friendly nor actually very Christian, so, maybe such exchanges with them are inappropriate & nonuseful: so, at most, maybe simply assert a disclaimer, mildly, so as to notseem to acquiece to their derogatory assertions, before simply discontinuing the subject

Just say, how so? Ask them reasoning. Defeat them with arguments with blindly believing what bible say.

You can say:
Did Jesus teach pride or humility? Buddha too taught humility. Did Jesus teach accumulation of riches or being satisfied with the little you have? Buddha too taught being satisfied with the little you have. Did Jesus teach sin or virtue? Buddha too taught virtue. Did Jesus teach hypocrisy or authentic goodness? Buddha too taught authentic goodness. Did Jesus teach war or peace? Buddha too taught peace. Did Jesus teach hate or love? Buddha too taught love.
Now, what do you think, given that both Jesus and Buddha taught humility, being satisfied with the little, virtue, authentic goodness, peace, and love - could it be that Buddha is Satan?

The problem with this response is that they will probably respond with "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24), and then continue arguing.

I'd say "false messiah who appears 500 years before Jesus and teaches kindness, humility, being satisfied with the little, virtue, authentic goodness, peace, and love? :)))" - and stop arguing.

@AndreiVolkov The problem with this argument is that it misses the point of one of Christianity's fundamental teachings - that humans are all imperfect, and that attaining perfection is impossible. Buddhists believe that you can save yourselves by practicing those things, and Christians believe that saving yourself is impossible (though they are all good things that Christians should strive towards).

I don't know if that's a problem. Whether saving oneself is possible or not, cultivating love and peace can make difference in our lives. So Buddhists and Christians are allies any way I look.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

@ruben2020 I think the response may be "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6). It is at the point that you stop arguing and withdraw.

@doneal24 Actually, Buddhists have no reason or need to get into any arguments with Christians or anybody else. That's why in my answer, I have stated what I think is the appropriate way to respond to unnecessary insults and confrontation, in a manner that is similar to the way the Buddha himself would have responded, as shown in the Akkosa Sutta. I commented on this answer to show how it may be twisted to continue needless arguments.

@doneal24 Whatever arguments you have against non-Christians, I suggest you go to Rabbi Tovia Singer's YouTube channel and try it on him. It's his life's mission to prove Christianity false. It's not mine.

For the record, I don't consider Christianity false. I think it's just a different system of upaya.

Just tell them:

I am not a Christian, and I'm not interested in becoming one.
My interest in Buddhism or any other religion is my own business.
Let's not discuss religion.

This answer would be in line with keeping the precept of abstaining from incorrect speech (including lying and speaking harsh words).

I think this is the best answer; to get someone to deviate from what they have believed and been told to believe all their life is very hard. Simply change the subject.

Well, the properly Buddhist response to this kind of assault is to nod somberly and say "I see...". We have to keep in mind that the Christians who make statements like this are acting out of fear and anger. They are frightened by the prospect of eternity, and worried about the salvation of themselves and their friends and family. They see other faiths, beliefs, and practices as mere temptations thrown in their path; temptations that have no use or purpose in themselves, but only exist to give the faithful a chance to ruin themselves. This kind of radical Christian fundamentalism is a deeply wounded worldview — not surprising, perhaps, since it begins with the betrayal and murder of their savior — and no one deserves compassion more than those caught is this intense, fear-ridden craving for eternal salvation.
It might also help to seek out more moderate Christians, who are generally as caring and loving as their faith implies, but tend to be far more reserved and quiet. We cannot evaluate the timbre of the whole if all we hear is the screeching of the few.
If you desire a more active response, I'd suggest going with a gentle, indirect koan, not a direct confrontation of their views. For instance, I might wonder aloud: "If Jesus were to go to hell to save the souls of the damned, should one follow him there?" It's not really a confrontation to their worldview, but it's bound to give them pause and make them think a bit outside their predefined box. Confronting them would only heighten their sense of self-righteous fear and anger, so the better option is to hold their fear and anger gently, not allowing it to affect us, until they recognize we offer nothing for them to fight against.

There was a joke I heard once while I was living in Toronto.

I have some good news, and some bad news. The good news, is that Toronto has been compared favourably with New York. And the bad news, is that Toronto has been compared with New York.

I think the fundamental problem with the scenario you're talking about is that it's a "comparison". Leaving aside specific details of the message (which you didn't even quote) like "Satan" and so on, the basic message is, "Buddhism isn't as good as Christianity" (and, "the Buddha isn't as good as Christ", and so on). No matter how you phrase or reword that comparison, it can be troublesome.
To this extent I might agree with Samana Johann's description, that it's "like children in the backyard fighting [about] whose father is better".
So also this answer, which associates "comparisons" with "conceit", and self-identification. The Dhamma warns that conceit is a cause of sectarian disputes.
You say you "feel hurt". I think that SN 7.2 suggests you needn't become "involved" in the discussion, needn't "partake" of what they're offering -- perhaps you needn't "respond" at all.
I was actually taught a form of Christianity when I was young -- and the one bit of that teaching which I found most unlikely, just too unlikely to believe, was the idea that "only the Christian Church's doctrine is true, and all non-Christians are wrong" -- or, using Buddhist vocabulary, "only this is true, any other (view) is false".
It's good to read Ud 6.4 which inludes the famous parable of the blind men and the elephant.

noted. i will find someway to improve my EQ

Good householder, it's always best to follow the Sublime Buddhas advices:

“Monks, if others were to speak in dispraise of me, in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Saṅgha, neither hatred nor antagonism nor displeasure of mind would be proper. If others were to speak in dispraise of me, in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Saṅgha, and at that you would be upset and angered, that would be an obstruction for you yourselves. If others were to speak in dispraise of me, in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Saṅgha, and at that you would be upset and angered, would you know what of those others was well-said or poorly said?”
“No, lord.”
“If others were to speak in dispraise of me, in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Saṅgha, you should unravel and explicate what is unfactual as unfactual: ‘This is unfactual, this is inaccurate, there is nothing of that in us, and that is not to be found in us.’
“If others were to speak in praise of me, in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Saṅgha, neither joy nor gladness nor exhilaration of mind would be proper. If others were to speak in praise of me, in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Saṅgha, and at that you would be joyful, glad, & exhilarated, that would be an obstruction for you yourselves. If others were to speak in praise of me, in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Saṅgha, and at that you would be joyful, glad, & exhilarated, would you know what of those others was well-said or poorly said?”
“No, lord.”
“If others were to speak in praise of me, in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Saṅgha, you should unravel and explicate what is factual as factual: ‘This is factual, this is accurate, there is that in us, and that is to be found in us.’
“It would be of minor matters, lower matters, matters of virtue, that a run-of-the-mill person, when praising the Tathāgata, would speak. And which are the minor matters, lower matters, matters of virtue, of which a run-of-the-mill person, when praising the Tathāgata, would speak?
Brahmajāla Sutta: The Brahmā Net

Of course it's only then really good if one walks like a disciple rather then a "Buddhist", for there isn't any different between a "Buddhist", "Chistian", "Muslim",... householder, villager,... at all, like children in the backyard fighting who's father is better and fear actually that he would approach, see then fight...
So less worth of the praise of a run-a-mill person as well but actually just increase of danger to make use of the Gems for his personal fights for stand and gains.
Children often make many foolish things wishing to become little stars on account of their heritage, seek wrong identification and fast harm with it all around.
Good householders avatar, btw., is much to red, bloody, of anger and attached and it's good to abound the color of extrems, formost inwardly, beginning outwardly to become gentle.
[Note that this isn't given for stackes, exchange, other worldbinding trades but for escape from it]

I think you doing good.
You can say 'Thank you to say the word "Buddha/Buddhist/Buddhism/Dhamma/Sangha"' and making sure you actually feel like that with real smile .
Let them know how you feel happy in Buddhism by practice yourself everytime even in front of him/her.
Don't say any word which they could feel you are offending them. Just let them know by good speaking/action with peace inside, then the peace inside will create the wisdom of right Mettā to you. It's not about talking or not, but it's about how are proper midsets enough for each situation which leading to Nibbāna.
You need right view, smallest relations understanding, to do the best. However, while you still practice the right view, you need to do the right virtue.
The right virtue is about how are proper actions enough for each situation which leading to Nibbāna. For the example in your situation:

Thank you for your caring .
We can exchange together about Satan and Buddhism, this is a book. You can give me your book as well
We can have a lunch to exchange in this topic
etc.

Christians like loving you can start the topic with loving kindnes. When they feel comfort to be with you, you can talk to them about the other topics.
That is the example of virtue.

Is this wasting of time or not?
It could be both. If you want to enlighten as fast as you can, you need to practice loving kindness and trying to avoid people like him or her because it is wasting time not using time. You have less then  100 years to practice what some 20,000 years old men couldn't done in time, so it's wasting time to analysis of the extreme people too much.
But if you decide to help people, you need to help them to practice together with you until your enlightenment. This is using time, not wasting.

Speaking as a Christian, I find some of these statements that you report your Christian acquaintances to be saying to be theologically problematic. As a result, I would recommend you reply to them with the following:
"Buddha is Satan": "Buddha was a human being, specifically a prince from what is now India. Satan, according to Christian doctrine, is an angel who rebelled against God. Since under Christian doctrine, humans can't become angels and angels can't become human, that means that Buddha is not Satan."
"Buddha is in hell": "Buddha was born before Jesus was, and never had the opportunity to learn Jesus's teachings. If Buddha is in Hell, so is everyone born before Jesus, save for the Israelites. As a result, I believe that this is an issue that is a matter of some debate among Christian theologians, since if God is omni-benevolent, he wouldn't condemn people to Hell without a chance for them to redeem themselves."
"All Buddhist shall go to hell": This one is actually theologically correct (at least for Buddhists who have been exposed to Christian teachings and knowingly rejected them). That said hellfire preaching is not exactly the best method for saving souls unless the person being preached at has some degree of buy-in, or the preacher is capable of pulling a St. Patrick and summoning up the ghost of a major religious figure to tell them how terrible Hell is (and let's be honest, they probably aren't). I would recommend that you simply thank them for their concern for you, and perhaps suggest that they might wish to attend a ministry course to learn more effective means of proselytization.
With that said, if you are going to correct their theology, you should do so in a loving fashion. You probably don't want them to feel like you're mocking them for their ignorance of their own religion - I'm not Buddhist, so I'm not completely familiar with the rules Buddhists are supposed to follow, but I'm pretty sure that deliberately trying to hurt and embarrass people with your speech is against the principles of Buddhism.

Thanks for your answer. You might like this little one-page summary of "Right Speech" (it's quotes extracted from the canon), including "The criteria for deciding what is worth saying" and "How to admonish another skillfully". It pretty well agrees with what you wrote, especially that last paragraph.

The answer to your question can be found in "Brahmajāla Sutta" (DN 1).

"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken?"
"Certainly not, Lord."
"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is false and point it out as false, saying: 'For such and such a reason this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is not found among us.'

You should unravel what is false for the sake of their own betterment. If they don't accept even after you've pointed out what is false and why it is false. Stop arguing, because argument in this world won't take you anywhere near to the truth. Why? because everyone who are trying to prove their argument as true are bounded by their own net of views.
If you wear blue lens sunglasses you are seeing the outer world as bluish. According to your view you're correct and there's no point of arguing with you as long as you wear the sunglasses. Instead, a wise man would teach you how to remove the glasses and see the world as it is.
Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma

Suggestions from an agnostic

Assume these people are sincere
They are concerned that you will go to hell. They truly believe this and they don't want you to suffer that dreadful fate.
They want you to attain heavenly bliss by following Jesus.
Therefore assume good intentions. Assume that these are kind, concerned people who want only the best for you.
Thank them for their good intentions
"I see that you are truly sincere about this and you want me to go to heaven with you. You are true Christians wanting only the best for others."
Tell them of your intentions
"At the moment I intend to continue to be a Buddhist but if I ever change my way of thinking to yours I will let you know personally."
Change the subject
"I shall certainly think about what you have said but for now let's talk about something else."
If they bring it up at a later date
"I haven't forgotten your kind words. I am still a Buddhist but as I promised, I will let you know if I change my mind."
Optional (only say this sort of thing if it is completely true)
I have read some of the Bible and I am impressed by how compassionate Jesus was. He seems a wonderful role model.

Conclusion
Have good intentions and assume good intentions. Acknowledge the beliefs of others as being true for them. Do not require others to reciprocate - they may be unable to.
Note
Don't use my words but say what is true for you. Don't learn a script but think deeply  about what you want to convey to them, then forget the words and allow them to flow when they need to. Right thinking will automatically lead to right words.

Final thoughts after walking and before retiring to bed.
To me as someone who takes neither side, you are like people standing on opposite sides of a line drawn in the sand of a desert. Each believes theirs is the right side. Lift your eyes from the line and look around. Do you wish to stay in the desert arguing?

Treat "Buddha is in Hell" as valuable koan. Meditate deeply on what it could mean to you as a Buddhist. You may be surprised.

If anyone abuses you then you should feel grateful that he or she didn’t hit you. Moreover you should bless all beings if such a thing happens. May all beings be happy and joyful.
It is a difficult thing to do but it is the best way to deal with the situation.

Well, I got hitted badly during martial arts sparring .. huh..  that was one inch punch

Then you should be grateful that you were not stabbed.

Ironically this is very similar to the christian "Turning the other cheek" Matthew 5:38–42  ( the following verse, although not Buddhist, has some interesting parallels (“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven." Mathew 6:1)

For the Christian, this answer might help:

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. --James: 4.7

For the Buddhist suffering, this thought might help:

AN5.162:2.4: you should get rid of resentment for that kind of person.

It helps because the Christian will hear the Bible and the Buddhist will not flee the Christian.

Thanks @OyaMist somehow while seek for the answer, i can feel the benefit of meditation and better control of my "Ajna" now without much side effect. I should thank to them too. I will be extra precaution on this with the provided guides/truths too. Relax, Be Water and Be Balanced :)

I think there is no need to defend anything. Jesus in your place  would have repeated his famous words, "Forgive them my Lord, for they do not know what they say." That said, you too need to introspect. Why do you feel hurt? Is doubt assailing you subtly as a clever dissimulator? Walk your path with conviction and move on to your goal. Nothing other than Nibbana matters!

My suggested response is: "Mu" & let them deal with figuring out what that means.
To paraphrase the science fiction author Robert Heinlein: To argue with them would be like trying to teach a pig to sing; all it would do is frustrate the teacher -- and annoy the pig.
There is a good reason that the Buddha did not spend time with answering some metaphysical (the Unanswered) questions. Spending time in such pursuits does not move one forward in the path to enlightenment. Neither will your spending time answering such taunts.
As to your duty to bring them wisdom which will lead them on their individual paths to enlightenment, remember that the Buddha said it is only to the willing should you make such efforts. It does not look to me that they would be willing and you have no responsibilities here either.
Best to you, Jim

It is surprising to see this question trending with thousand views, and multiple interesting response which i think is more than enough. However, I want to share a rather strange fact from different perspective.
The main language where I live, a language spoken by 100+ million people, the word  ‘Buddha’ pronounced almost exactly like the name of the enlightened one, means "an evil one" or a being which cast an evil omen, and the people are predominantly fanatic Christian. So a reaction like the OP's friends is not uncommon. Specially, if they see a Buddha statue or a like, they will sure call the statue an idol of Satan.
So, how do you converse with them? You don't! If you converse at all, you only converse with those who start to question the virtues taught by Jesus himself. Because it is not as @ Andrei put it in his response above, the Buddha taught beyond the virtues, he taught the sublime release beyond humility and simplicity. In short, you have to pass Christianity to be a Buddhist, the path doesn't end in enjoy little and being a humble being.
If you really need to respond, a simple response given by @ ruben2020 above, without being forceful, is I think more appropriate .

They are giving answers out of hate. Christianity does not teach hate, they say to "love thy neighbour." Tell them this, and if they don't understand, then they are not proper Christians. Don't let their opinions (yes it's just their opinions) change your mind or affect you. If they continue and don't learn, they are toxic friends and one will be better without them.

I am working and living in a culture that have plenty of them that I can avoid unless I leave the country. This is justified by the fb comments whenever there is a racial talks. There are not toxic but somehow they could misinterpret the bible.

My culture Buddhist has made their mistake too by worshipping Tao Statue, Buddha Statue or whatever statue because they know nothing about Buddhism. They will pray for winning gamble, big house, business which many  is unethical, then go drink,  drunk  n hit other race that forbidden the drinking.

Well, indeed I have plan to leave the place :)

I dont really get angry after found this information below or could it be the anger is triggered from below?

Misconception of Buddhism

Most Chinese follow a combination of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and ancestor-worship but, when pressed to specify their religion, will identify themselves as Buddhists. As a result, 83.6% of all the Chinese self-identifying as Buddhist. Information collected in the census based on respondent's answer and did not refer to any official document. I believe this applicable to many other countries too. Most major religion like Muslim or Christian disallow statue worship.

Worship without guide

Those Chinese Buddhist will worship for money most in common and know nothing about Buddhism. One very common mistake that trigger this anger is they drink, drunk n hit the other race by car that alchohol is forbidden from other races yet become no1 topic on social media for a racist talk. 2ndly, over craving for unnecessary living standard and speculated the basic goods up like shop rental where making everything become expensive. Chinese is mostly dominated the shops rental by the way.

Sharing in Buddhism is limited.

Why there is limited sharing in Buddhism
Some Buddhist will be more ethical if they do read the Sutra but they mostly know 0 meaning out of it. The most common one in south China is Heart Sutra and to find someone to Interprerate is very difficult. Those with IT literate will only find it easy on the internet.
Here what normally I do after few rounds of confrontation

Just be patience with my limited EQ and self talk not to follow the force of bad karma and the bad karma place.

Be forgiven of my finding above. Well, indeed Buddhist made some mistakes too right ?

They might have misinterpreted from the written truth Bible. When I m free will go deep into Bible on this matters.

Thanks all.


text:
Does feeding animals with dead chicks and live worms break precepts?
As part of a volunteering job where endangered animals are taken care of they have to feed them with dead chicks recuperated from the agro industry, which is blameless and doesn't break precepts, though they also feed them worms that are alive.
Is it breaking the first precept since they don't kill them ?

though they also feed them worms that are alive. Is it breaking the first precept since they don't kill them ?

Sure. While you do not actively terminate life by your own hand, handing it over to others to take care of the bussiness requires the volition to end life. And since volition is kamma, you'd incur the appropriate kammic consequences. You wouldn't send over some live worms to that endangered animal to keep company or with the hope that they'd become best buddies, right?

Thank you santa100 for your answer, I may have dodge a bullet by refusing to feed them, most grateful. In a similar light, I wonder for instance if bringing chickens into a garden for a healthy soil through manure and regulating insects involve the volition to end life as well ? As one wouldn't be involved in the process this time but simply letting nature take its course

@AliochaKaramazov, I guess you're right. At some point, we'll just have to let nature takes its course. Reminds me of that philosophical dilemma about a person in the jungle seeing a female leopard about to hunt down a deer, wondering what s/he should do: stop the leopard, hence preventing it from bringing home the much needed food source for its 3 hungry cubs? OR let it does it business and the deer is killed? Anyway, I guess one should try his best if possible, ie. in your example, see if you could use natural plants as insect repellents first, instead of the chickens?

The dilemma reminds me of someone citing a passage from the Vinaya on this for wherein it was stated that if a monk where not to save a man drowning he wasn't committing any fault. Yes association of plants is a good way to repel insects.

Thanks Santa for the good answer.

So, Your intention is to so much good as a volunteer, or as a worker, with the endangered species. That wish, that intention, that emotion, and mental and physical activity is creating some karma that will mature in the future, for better or worse. Cleverness was not rejected by the Buddha. He would sometimes encourage the layman, who asked questions, to solve the problem, creatively. So, say you have so much good aspiration to help others, and only .05% intention to destroy life? Should you give up your job? Did you know that when you drive your car or take a bus or a train, or a plane, there are billions of insects killed by these vehicles moving through the air? What if you cut the worm into two parts? And put one part in the ground, and feed the other part to this endangered animal, would the buried worm part regenerate? I think it might. Then you created life. Please do not worry so much. Find a good group and do the New Moon and the Full Moon called uposatha. Please do this with sincerity and let the Dharma transform you. Let the peace of Dharma pervade your entire body and mind. Let your judgment and good restraint increase. Find a good teacher. May you awaken in this very life. Sarvam Mangalam.

Thank you for your answer Pasquale. While I resonate with most of your words, willingly ending a life by splitting a worm in half or feeding it to animals is still breaking the first precept, even if the outcome is to help other beings. It reminds me of a story where Ajahn Chah advised a fisher to fish less and susbequently got rid of fishing as means of livelihood seeing how he depended on the business of meat and killing. One could argue that he is feeding human beings and his family thus helping them, yet still breaking the first precept.

Thank you very much. I see, I think what your basis for the judgment is. Cutting the worm in half is considered an act that causes suffering. I just thought that this is not as bad as killing since many worms can either regenerate the tail, if lost, or Even the Head if lost. Thank you, though. Let me ask you this? If a fisherman has many people to feed, and he uses worms to catch the fish, and if these people did not eat, they would stare. If his motivation was to remove the pain of the starving people, but not to cause any pain to the worms or fish, would his mixed karma be mostly positive?

Good householder,
regardless of precept (it would actually require cross-questioning the doer if he/she is willing, to know for sure in regard of the deed; technical it might be in most cases even no break of precept, depends all on perception, intention, victim, actually actor...): there are three doors of Kamma, deeds: by body, by speech (signs of order, written...) and by mind (thoughts of wish, approve, rejoice...). It's in all cases good here to start to seek not even mental for ways of approve.
But better then to check other's ways is to be clear and on an improving way for oneself. Soon then, if serious in reflection, good householder would find out that there is actually only one kind of holly live which is apart of all kinds of trades and house.
Sila does not only lead to well earned happiness, but also to wealth and at least, and most importand toward the path and release. So the more looking on "rules" in ways to act perfect and lesser like an advocate searching for ways to go around for ones wishes, the more one will turn toward the bliss of going forth form suffering and pain.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for escape from this wheel]

Repeatedly we find people who are confused about conduct with regards to killing insects and animals. Precepts are clear on this ,as a monk you should not kill insects or animals. But as a householder you need to first commit to the Nobel eight fold path otherwise it will hard for you to live. In fact as a householder you may have to commit violence against fellow human beings to survive. I won’t recommend you to commit suicide by following Buddha half heartedly. Holding Dhamma the wrong way could lead to serious moral and existential problems.

I was reading the comments on the 3 karmas of Body Speech and Mind, and I found all very detailed, but I was wondering about the realistic aspect of practice for most laypeople. Here is my example. Even vegetarians, who kill no animal on purpose, do they incur the karma once they realize that the trucks that deliver their vegetables and fruits to the market are killing billions of insects every year and possibly other creatures, too. How does one explain the karma of this indulgence? Eating food and knowing insects die every day because of food deliveries? Please put this into practice terms.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are stories on awakening while practicing teaching the Dhamma?
Teaching the Dhamma (Dhammadesana), having heard the good, is one of the higher meritorious deeds, practiced by instructed, not regarded as useless question & answer ways, as from outsider often thought, but after hearing the Dhamma, one of the five ways to gain release, awakening.

...“Further, it’s not that the Teacher or a fellow person leading the holy life teaches the Dhamma to the monk. But the monk teaches the Dhamma to others in detail, as he has heard it, as he has learned it. And in whatever way he teaches the Dhamma to others in detail, as he has heard it, as he has learned it, in just that way the monk, with regard to that Dhamma, is sensitive to the meaning, is sensitive to the Dhamma. In him—sensitive to the meaning, sensitive to the Dhamma—joy is born. When he is joyful, rapture is born. In one who is enraptured at heart, the body grows calm. When the body is calm, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure, the mind becomes concentrated. This, monks, is the second opening to release… Vimutti Sutta

Maybe one or another likes to teach about such occasions, as he had heard, shares stories of how it came to release.
What are retelling of occasions where the one who taught gained paths and fruits?
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, excange, other world-binding trades but for release from this wheel]

One example comes from the Khemaka Sutta:

That is what Ven. Khemaka said. Gratified, the elder monks delighted
in his words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of
sixty-some monks, through no clinging, were fully released from
fermentations — as was Ven. Khemaka's.

Before he taught them, Ven. Khemaka was not an arahant. But after he taught them, both he and his audience became arahants.

What was the taught about, good householder?

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


text:
Do only sentient being suffer
All I can think of off the top of mind head is the zen claim that mountains are buddha nature. Do they suffer? They are composed of parts, and I believe that there is a type of suffering from "conditioned existence", in Pali.

i mean i don't think i could have been born as a rock. but i think i could die unonscious. just thinking out loud

Suffering is a kind of meaning-making. If there's semiosis - there can be suffering. Semiosis is not limited to sentient beings or even to living beings, but it does require some kind of functional ecosystem, I think. So the current destructive processes in the Earth's ecosystem are a kind of suffering inasmuch as they interfere with natural semiosis, IMO.

i have no opinion on anything anymore... there's too manny, and too much weeirdness

Is a mountain heavy?
It may be heavy in and of itself, but as long as we don't try to lift it up, it won't be heavy for us. ... The Weight of Mountains

My person thinks that householder goes after every, even foolish thought and does not scare to even let it become speech. The serial of questions found is amazing... Don't he like to train a little of letting go of useless thoughts, don't giving them attention, otherwise they are just further nourished, wasting time and resources: causing suffering even not aware.
Better reflecting on mountains in this way: The Simile of the Mountains, for it helps not to wast hard gained human existence.
[note that this isn't giving for entertaining, stacks, exchange and other world-binding trades but for escape from this wheel]

I believe that there is a type of suffering from "conditioned existence", in Pali

Assuming you're thinking of a phrase like sabbe sankhara dukkha, I think that's usually translated as, something like, "all conditioned things are unsatisfactory".
That's not saying that mountains feel dissatisfaction themselves -- I think it's saying that sentient beings (i.e. who have "feelings" and who perceive "mountains" etc.) can't find things such as mountains to be a permanent source of satisfaction.
See also topics like:

Why is 'dukkha' included in one of the three marks of existence?
Differences between the tilakkhana and the Dhamma seal

i'm not saying mountains have feelings. i mean, feeling is a specific thing, it's noty the same as suffering

Do only sentient being suffer?

Not all sentient beings suffer.Those who have attained Nirvana do not suffer at all. They are freed from suffering.

All I can think of off the top of mind head is the zen claim that
mountains are buddha nature. Do they suffer? They are composed of
parts, and I believe that there is a type of suffering from
"conditioned existence", in Pali.

I have not read anything Zen but Buddha Nature is free of suffering. You asked Do mountains suffer ? That is not the right way to look at it. Suppose anyone believes I am mountains then he is bound to suffer. Ordinary person may even believe I am Earth but such a belief can not end suffering because sabbe Dhamma Anatta i.e Earth is not me , mine or myself.(Same applies to Water , Air , Fire etc)

does the buddha nature exist apart from phenomena, though?

@satirical_buddhist  Buddha nature is the nature of nirvana. It is the nature of unborn, uncreate ,unbecoming, unoriginated, unformed. Phenomenon and thoughts are Anatta...


text:
Sourcing a prajñāpāramitā statement
In the Madhyamakaśāstra, Venerable Vimalākṣa quotes the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra:
菩薩有我亦非行無我亦非行
"If the bodhisatva has a self, he cannot act. With no self too, he cannot act."
T1564.24b29
I've read this before, but finding it in the sūtra is proving daunting. Where in the root sūtra can we find the passage the Venerable is quoting? Also, where can we find the corresponding section of the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra commentary concerning this statement?

Searching CBETA shows that this passage, as given, is not cited from any known Chinese Prajñāpāramitā translation.
We find the following in T 235 (Kumārajīva's Vajracchedikā translation)
須菩提！若菩薩有我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相，即非菩薩。(T 235; 8.235a10-11：
This passage in T 220 (Xuanzang) seems more promising as the source.
不作是念：『我亦行亦不行般若波羅蜜多。』(T 220; 5.33c20-21).

The "root" is a passage from the 18th chapter of the MMK:

諸佛或說我 或說於無我 諸法實相中 無我無非我 諸法實相者 心行言語斷 無生亦無滅 寂滅如涅槃 一切實非實 亦實亦非實 非實非非實
是名諸佛法
All Buddhas either speak of self or speak of no self. All dharmas’
true aspect, within this, there is neither self nor no self. All
dharmas’ true aspect is defined as mental activity’s and spoken
language’s ending.There is no arising and no cessation, there is calm
extinction, such is nirvāṇa. All is real, all is unreal, all is both
real and unreal, all is neither real nor unreal: this is called all
Buddhas’ dharma.

This does not answer the question. The root of the quotation is from the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra. It is not originally from the MMK. Also, this quotation you gave is not from the same area of the 18th chapter of the MMK commentary. I will give you brownie points though since you used my translation.

If you want a more updated version, I'm now translating the passage like this:
"All of the Buddhas speak concerning the self
or speak concerning selflessness,
but within the true aspect of all phemonena
there is neither the self nor selflessness.
The true aspect of all phenomena
is the ending of the mind activity and spoken language.
Unarisen and unending,
it is quiet tranquility. It is nirvana.
All is real. All is unreal.
All is real and unreal.
All is neither real nor unreal.
This is called the Dharma of all Buddhas."

Easier to read for English speakers, less plural genitives (i.e. "all dharmas' true aspect") In the above, change "the mind activity" to "mental activity."

Wouldn't a better way to say it be, "the true nature of all phenomena is beyond mental activity and spoken language"? (instead of "ending of").


text:
Do we perceive the whole?
According to I think all Buddhists, the whole is nothing more than its parts. I've read it claimed that, given everything is partite, nothing exists. Perhaps Being means something more than its parts, though I'm not sure. Anyway, do we perceive - with or as the skandhas - something as a thing that is more than its parts? Such as a chariot.
I think that would mean that things that don't exist can sometimes be the object of perception. In turn, that interests me because beings without any existence may - perhaps - be in some sense permanent and non-empty, as well as impermanent and empty.
The implications for karma seem obvious.

Update: it definitely seems that Theravada Buddhists claim that we only infer the whole, and do not perceive it. I'm unsure about the Mahayana, especially given how often "the whole universe" crops up in discussing the bodhisattva. So, if I may ask two follow up points:

is the inference to a whole like something: so that the whole in some sense belongs to our mental life?
what about in the Mahayana?

ps i will add a bounty when i can

We do not need to see the whole to recognise what it is. Perception of parts of car or chariot is sufficient to establish it is car or chariot. Similarly parts of face features are enough for us to conclude who is.
We do not necessarily perceive the whole. Yes we can hold perception of things which were but are no more.

sounds about right, with the implication we do not perceive the whole, as we don't need to... at least in theravada. however, some references would be ideal

Perception is interpretation. Interpretation is inference. When we perceive the chariot we infer it from its signs, then project that inference back on the basis (the parts and the context).
This projection is the source of trouble (dukkha) because we ignorantly tend to attribute our own, often incorrect, interpretations, biases, and assumptions to the basis of inference.
The understanding that all entities without exception are inference and that in reality entities are not delineated (and lack fixed identities) is a big part of realization of Emptiness.

i more or less agree, thanks

As one perceives so he thinks, speaks... perceiving and interpreting are two different mental spectrums and because mind is slippery, hardly to grasp, the Buddha didn't encouraged not instructed, trained, to develop householder-emptiness...

The “whole” is neither the sum of parts, nor a unity. From the perspective of relative knowledge it would more correctly be stated to be multiplicity found in unity, but as soon as you start conceiving a thing called “unity” you are lost. This is philosophical.
From the perspective of absolute truth, there is nothing that can be accurately said—language is incapable of encompassing the absolute. Poetry helps a little though.
From the perspective of how we perceive, clearly our senses deliver a continuous (for the most part) stream of nerve impulses to the brain. Science asserts that then, once those impulses reach the brain, it and its constituent, “consciousness,” creates the experience of colorful light, sounds, sensations of touch and stretch, smells, and tastes, and somehow the brain organizes that into intelligible experiences—clearly an interpretation of what is arriving at any time. At the present time, however, this process is just asserted, and not shown, by scientists, who are constrained by their adherence to a certain understanding of reality, at any given time.
A better way to understand what is happening—a more Buddhist way—is to see all of those nerve impulses reaching various areas of the brain as the conditions for the manifestation in mind (mind and brain not being equivalent) of the various perceptions that flood over us throughout our waking moments. In this way, karma, and character, and even mood, as well as the body of our current state of understanding (our ‘knowledge’) have a place in the conditioning of what arises in mind. This way of understanding what is happening better fits both our wakeful experiences and our dreams while sleeping, or being ‘unconscious’.
In the end, mind is the only source of manifested experiences. So what do we perceive—the whole? The “whole” of what exactly? Our imaginary entities and their ‘wholes’ and ‘parts’?
Thus, direct meditative knowledge of the wisdom mind is the goal of mind-training, just as having a “ripped body” is the goal of weight-training. Wholes and parts are just concepts, as are what they describe, and these are like the wind: they arrive and create chaos in our mind, blowing concepts around like leaves, and then suddenly, they disappear once one has trained their mind to chill out and pay attention to what is truly happening.


text:
Looking for a canonical reference: everyone who attains jhana will be a god of that realm in the next life
Looking for a canonical reference: that everyone who attains jhana will be a god of that realm in the next life.
I'm fairly sure I've seen that claimed in scholarship, either Buddhist or otherwise.

The question is about common interpretations of AN 4.123.

anything in the current adhidamma?


text:
How to let go of something the other person involved won't acknowledge
How does one let go of something the other person involved won't acknowledge? I don't mean the niceties of the other person's behaviour, the ins and outs and whys. Merely, that the other person - I think - nihilistically won't finish up.
So e.g. your lover leaves you without even leaving a note. Or your friend pretends not to know you, with no explanation. Or your family changes the locks and won't answer the door when you visit.

i hope this isn't too much like self help

In the West, we tend to affirm protest, intervention, resentment, and even revenge. In contrast, the Buddha tells us to let it go. That's quite a contrast to deal with.

AN5.162:6.10: In the same way, at that time you should ignore that person’s impure behavior by way of speech and body, and the fact that they don’t get an openness and clarity of heart from time to time, and think of them with nothing but compassion, kindness, and sympathy:  ‘Oh, may this person give up bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and develop good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind.  Why is that?  So that, when their body breaks up, after death, they’re not reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.’

When the behavior of others disturbs us, we must first acknowledge that the perception of disturbance is within us--we see ugliness to which feel aversion and experience a desire to "make it right". Propelled by this aversion and desire, our resulting actions are corrupted by our own aversion and desire. Because of this, we generate suffering for ourselves with delusions of righteousness.
So our first action is to deal with the mess inside, clean it up and let it go. If our feelings are hurt, we let that go. If we feel resentment, we let that go. If we feel anger, we let that go. We have to let all the clinging go. Because if we don't let go, our actions will have an unskillful root. Such actions always lead to more suffering.
Relationships have a beginning. And because they have a beginning, they also have an end. Thoughtless endings, ghosting and worse, hurt both parties. It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience. We become each other's dismissable clickbait. Yet perhaps a thoughtless ending was matched by a thoughtless beginning. Perhaps we can consider and nurture relationships that matter.
The Buddha discusses the danger of fake friends, and urges us to be wise in the relationships we start and maintain:

DN31:15.1: “Householder’s son, you should recognize these four enemies disguised as friends: the taker, the talker, the flatterer, the spender.

Fake friends aside, we can look to become a good friend worthy of good friends:

DN31:21.1: “Householder’s son, you should recognize these four good-hearted friends: the helper, the friend in good times and bad, the counselor, and the one who’s compassionate.

Let go of bad relationships. Open your heart to good-hearted relationships. And keep your heart open even to people from bad relationships--there may come a time when such a person comes back to you to make amends. Be open to that.

that's the thing tho... how do we let go of bad relationships if we don't really know they are bad etc.?

i guess in our behaviour yeah. thanks

This my person likes most: "It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience." And it would be really good if people alway do what they shop, even for free...

And - of course as a child of communism understandable to think on rights first - the question actually askes of what the "victim" should do, right? "Victim-duties" are asked, if wishing to call it like that. Consumer, of course, do seldom other then help each other as if victims...

In additiibn, one may see it as demand from a bad relation, or not repaiable gift of a good, a task: Karma and Gratitude, Bhante Thanissaro

Good time to think about whether ones behaviour is total out of control? What does good householder think: Maybe good to investigate the matter and try to get back on earth and stay mindful?

where is your compassion for me? my behaviour is fine compared to the other party., imho

Ever thought that pointing on pimple is a seldom to receive compassion? May good householder just take a look first. At least he asked for reason and answer. One very self-centered may not see his acts but just wonders why suddenly alone. Satirical, isn't it.

Btw. there are no limits of raising questions but some might feel disturbed and make of moderating out of personal preverances...

huh? what do you mean? how i am disturbing whom?

Many questions seem not be really considered as if good householder wouldn't be on stage but uses the place just as garbage deposit of arising fermentations. On the other hand, question like this here isn't bad at all if really not aware why people actually may turn away. So it's a very practical case here as well (stacks and exchange seeker don't like practicing, that is the 'problem', they seek for real things in words and signs...)

i don't think this is getting a better answer, i will delete if you do your answer

it's, as told, actually a good question and good to reflect on the matter. Remember the Kesi Sutta in regard of stopping to feed which is actually, if intentional, hard 'punishment' which might have causes but not forgething that all could be also just ones own movie feeling not regarded, lacking food of touch. Good householder seems like as if needing much personal attention, food...


text:
Personal relationships and properly ending them
Upasaka Karl mentioned in an answer:

Relationships have a beginning. And because they have a beginning, they also have an end. Thoughtless endings, ghosting and worse, hurt both parties. It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience. We become each other's dismissable clickbait. Yet perhaps a thoughtless ending was matched by a thoughtless beginning. Perhaps we can consider and nurture relationships that matter.

Isn't it merely the case that personal relationships never really end, that some of the debts remain forever? That one actually stays bonded forever, even after ending of a relationship...

What are the valid reasons for ending a personal relationship?

How to end a relationship properly?

Which (as it were) "relationship" can't be ended, once gotten into?

What's the effect of denying being in a personal relationship and consuming outside of it, thinking "I am free" or "this is my right"?

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades and relation-misuse but to escape toward]

The word "personal relation" wasn't used in the original question, so as other mixed in fermentations.... Do moderators now reformulate questions to fit to an "answer" that comes them to mind? Total pointless... can somebody bring this total confused - and short before total blackout - fantast Vollkoffer to mind? The most harmless explaining would be drunken at work but my person fears the impact is already larger...

Your Upasaka Karl's quote spoke about personal relationships, so I assumed you are asking about that, but please feel free to edit the question and make it clear what "relations" you meant. Physical, social, conceptual, mathematical, etc.

The quote was from an answer to this question whose example of a "relationship" was, "your lover leaves you without even leaving a note" -- that's the kind or a kind of relationship that the quote is talking about.And there are many kinds of "personal" relationships, including also for example with parents and friends etc. (perhaps excluding business relationships or  civic relationships).

Personal ("sexual") relationship is a fiction, a hallucination. To paraphrase my Zen master, what worldly people call "love" is an obsession, a disease of the mind. Ownership of people is slavery and so is the owning relationships between people.
As said in the prophecy of Maitreya in the Maitreyavyākaraṇa:

[Gods, people, and other sentient beings] will lose their doubts, and the torrents of their cravings will be cut off: free from all misery they will manage to cross the ocean of becoming; and, as a result of Maitreya's teachings, they will lead a holy life. No longer will they regard anything as their own, they will have no possession, no gold or silver, no home, no relatives! But they will lead the holy life of oneness under Maitreya's guidance.

Conventionally, relationships are clinging aggregates that bring delight and suffering. One chases beauty and finds skeletons after a time.
Setting aside the clinging, relationships are just aggregates. They are named forms. For example, "father and mother" are relationships, named aggregates, for all posting here.
For those who go forth, the relationship with mother and father changes. One must with respect and gratitude request parent's permission before going forth. One asks permission to end the relationship with home and start a relationship with homelessness.

MN82:6.8: “Raṭṭhapāla, Buddhas don’t give the going forth to the child of parents who haven’t given their permission.”

In contrast, denying a relationship leads to lies and stealing.

AN3.70:3.11: “I don’t belong to anyone anywhere! And nothing belongs to me anywhere!”’...

AN3.70:3.25: This, I say, is lying.  When the night has passed they use their possessions once more, though they’ve not been given back to them. This, I say, is stealing.

There are also special relationships. For example, the Four Noble Truths have a relationship with one another. As far as I know, that relationship is permanent, but that's beyond me.
And finally, with the ending of wishes, one disappears into a "permanent relationship" with emptiness.

MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.  So, Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’

The suttas appear to teach relationships based on right moral view are permanent:

....young householder, should a wife as the West be
ministered to by a husband: (iii) by being faithful to her. The wife
thus ministered to as the West by her husband shows her compassion to
her husband...: (iii) she is faithful... DN 31
If both husband & wife want to see one another not only in the present
life but also in the life to come, they should be in tune [with each
other] in conviction, in tune in virtue, in tune in generosity, and in
tune in discernment. AN 4.55
Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie
is actually the whole of the holy life. SN 45.2

Upasaka Karl mentioned in an answer:
Relationships have a beginning. And because they have a beginning, they also have an end. Thoughtless endings, ghosting and worse, hurt

both parties. It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping
experience. We become each other's dismissable clickbait. Yet perhaps
a thoughtless ending was matched by a thoughtless beginning. Perhaps
we can consider and nurture relationships that matter.

Relationships are impermanent. They result in suffering. But when ? Only when we attach to them. Only when we cling to them. No matter how thoughtfully you begin it will end. Relationships with the followers of Dhamma or the relationships with those who serve the society in the right way are worth giving considerations.

Isn't it merely the case that relations, because still debts, don't end? That one actually stays bond...

Relations are impermanent.

What are valid reasons to end a relation?

Thoughts of renunciation is the right thought no matter what is the worldly reason. You give up a relation to form a bigger or greater relationship like Buddha or Jesus. Father son relationship , Mother and child relationship with all.

How to end a relation proper?

Just leave. Do not be angry or agitated. Be grateful for getting the opportunity to be a monk or for getting a valuable experience in life.

Which 'relation' isn't possible to end, once gotten into?

Some relations last long. Some relations are spiritual. If you are a thief , police will be in relations with you until you are punished. If you are an actor , crowds will be in relations with you until you become boring. If you are a monk who has returned to the world then Mara will give you all that you want until your Dhamma is exhausted. But there is no relation which has no end.

What's the effect of denying being related and consume, thinking "free" or "my right"?

You cant deny you own money if you are rich. You cant deny you are in relationship if you have karmic entanglement.

"The suttas appear to teach relationships based on right moral view are permanent", did one say. Of course they are not either, at least because Sila, proper conduct isn't permanent, lasting, for sure. Yet it's because Sila leads to the Unrelated that it's proper to say proper relation to Sila, leads to a "permanent" relation.
Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti.
Through virtue they go to a good bourn.
Sīlena bhoga-sampadā.
Through virtue is wealth attained.
Sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti.
Through virtue they go to Liberation.
Tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.
Therefore we should purify our virtue.
And what's the root of real Sila? Gratitude.
Here also a nice talk on the matter of relationships in regard of persons: Karma and Gratitude, Bhante Thanissaro
If that level is mastered it would be the opening to get taught on how to end relation with the six strings, e.g. the world, the aggregates.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other low trades, but to escape from this wheel]

Sexual love is abandoned very, very early on, on the bodhisattva path. They call it the stage of dry wisdom in the suranggama sutra, which is the first realization one can have.
Though obviously zen masters can have wives, in some traditions (less so Korean). Not sure what they make of 'divorce'.
Those saying you should end relationships when you need to else you are clinging, I think are glibly understanding dukkha and non-attachment. It is surely not the same thing as right moral conduct, silla.
Whether or not it is morally wrong to end a friendship, depends on context and motivation. If it's because you owe them money and it'll be easier not to pay: yeah don't do that. If it's because they are a bad influence on you, yes do (keeping good company is a touchstone of Buddhist ethics, I believe).

It's a bit like being trolled by someone that promised they wouldn't. I've been ghosted once or twice, I think, and it is so confusing as well as mean/bullying. It's nothing like breaking the vinaya, which is far worse, but there are ways/protocols/modes of behaviour in mundane life, and running away with no explanation can do more than hurt. What bothers me is that unlike most forms of self assertion, it always seems so wilful. You know like all it takes is one phonecall.

life is strange. e.g. so the first person to ghost me may even have called back, not just hung up, only to pretend to be someone else. these things are just so avoidable, and really that's why

check out this doctor on relationship handling, your answer is there as i watched before. Check out few of his videos. His hand has a Buddha tattoo so very obvious is a Buddhist. His face looks a bit scary with body tattoo due to his career as this folk handling those psychopathic patient in jail. It's not an easy job and kudoo to him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duh5rOGyEnk
May peace be with you.


text:
Is making art bad or sinful?
I would not be writing this if I had another way of knowing the answer. Unfortunately, I cannot talk to anyone due to quarantine. Even though I have thought a lot about it, I am still unsure. My question is this: "Is art bad karma?" To preface, I am a Theravadin woman. As you know, women cannot be ordained. So, I try my best to follow the monastic rules but stay outside of a monastery. I would like to follow the strictest Buddhist teachings. Now, I will write what I have thought about art.
Firstly, the Buddha does not speak much about householders in comparison to monks. However, the popular consensus seems to be that he allows laypeople to have their cultures. Yet, different countries also seem to have different monastic cultures, too, despite being ordained. Secondly, part of this culture is Buddhist art like sculptures and narrative tapestries. Thirdly, since the Buddha allows written works, narrative art may be permitted as a form of visual communication like writing and the Buddha's own speech can be poetic.
Recently, I have promised myself that I would finish an art project and then move onto a fully religious life. However, I have repeatedly been stopped from progressing by a great pain in my heart at the prospect of never doing art again. Music is meant to seduce people with melodies. Likewise, acting is lying to arouse extreme, perhaps negative, emotions in people. Dance is the most lustful artistic field. I took the same attitude to visual art, seeing it as being influenced by lust and anger.
However, in my art (which I have felt guilt for doing due to my opinions of it), I have slowly realised that I do not have lustful or wrathful intentions. My art depicts my culture (Japanese): marriage, funerals, temples, mythological figures, daily life, mountains, etc. I wanted to preserve the cultural narrative for my own peace of mind, rememberance, meditation, and future generations. Considering all that I have said and seen about culture and art and Buddhism and karma, is art bad karma? If someone has a specific quotation on this, please let me know. Any comments, I appreciate.

Isn't there a sect of Buddhist monks that regularly creates works of art out of colored sand and then promptly destroys them using rakes? Not sure if that's relevant to you or not.

music is seductive, acting is lying, and dance is lustful. are you even allowing yourself to enjoy life? I thought buddhists were trying to eliminate suffering.

this may heolp http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/lieberman/zen.html i suggest googling it for nuance

Art can be a continuation of samsaric inertia, or it can be an expression of the enlightened mind. What message are you sending with your art? What impulse does it carry forward into the future?

Cannot upvote this enough. Let's not forget what the middle path means: there are no rules.

@Anton there are clearly rules in Buddhism. what do you mean by "rules"?

@satirical_buddhist I disagree that there are rules in Buddhism. What most people call rules of Buddhism are merely guides. The core of Buddhism is the Middle Path which distills to "it depends".

@Anton I'm not sure if the suttas define the Middle Path as you say "buddhism" do. As far as I know, the concept of 'middle' seem to be used in the suttas mostly in two ways: as a position between 'existence' and 'non-existence', namely, Dependent Origination; or as a practice between hedonism and extreme ascetism, namely, the Eightfold Path. Here there's a discussion about it on D&D-SuttaCentral.

In DN1, the Buddha explains in detail what he refrains from. Since you're an artist, you'll understand that art can be used to highlight beauty. Such art would foster clinging and prolong suffering by that attachment:

DN1:1.16.1: ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in beautifying and adorning themselves with garlands, fragrance, and makeup. This includes such things as applying beauty products by anointing, massaging, bathing, and rubbing; mirrors, ointments, garlands, fragrances, and makeup; face-powder, foundation, bracelets, headbands, fancy walking-sticks or containers, rapiers, parasols, fancy sandals, turbans, jewelry, chowries, and long-fringed white robes. The ascetic Gotama refrains from such beautification and adornment.’

Also in DN1, the Buddha explains how certain practices such as marriage fall outside the practice. Art seeking to preserve and cherish such practices might therefore side-step a deeper and mindful consideration of precepts:

DN1:1.26.2: This includes making arrangements for giving and taking in marriage; for engagement and divorce; and for scattering rice inwards or outwards at the wedding ceremony. It also includes casting spells for good or bad luck, curses to prevent conception, bind the tongue, or lock the jaws; charms for the hands and ears; questioning a mirror, a girl, or a god as an oracle; worshiping the sun, worshiping the Great One, breathing fire, and invoking Siri, the goddess of luck. The ascetic Gotama refrains from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such wrong livelihood.’

But art is also an exploration into perception itself. To draw a form, we must perceive a form. And to draw a form properly requires equanimous and accurate perception. Artists need to strip away preconceptions to draw what is seen. So if we draw a marriage, are we seeing the bags of bones holding hands or are we merely celebrating a facade of impermanent wishes? What truth informs our art?

SN22.76:9.1: The master’s knowledge has arisen: ‘This bag of bones is my last.’

The answer to your deep question might be found SN12.23, which explains perception and suffering:

SN12.23:1.2: “Mendicants, I say that the ending of defilements is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know or see. For one who knows and sees what? ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.

May your art bring you peace.

Nobody is going to punish you for your art. Art is not a crime. But in Buddha’s world the priorities are different. The number one priority is to end suffering. And for that purpose art is a distraction for those follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Most people do not understand the urgency of the matter.
If you follow Buddha’s Dhamma then avoid painting and instead concentrate on meditation. If you can’t then at least depict Dhamma through your art: this way you will remain in touch with the Truth and not get lost in the world of Mara.

If good householder finds stenght in effort to let go of what binds back and seeks for what is of long term use and help for oneself and all others, such isn't compareable with what ever worldily art and skill to go after. If starting to try to justify reasons to do not go for it, the highest, meaning doubt, meaning lack of Saddha, then right there the path is lost.
Clear of that does no more require the philosophy around of what is ku-sala (bad-cutting off) and not (a-ku-sala, not-bad-cutting-off).
Does one seek for admirable association, advices, or actually look for feed of ones defilement?
Good householder knew the answer to her already, righy?
Don't wast time. You could later, if wishing, once gained highest goal, teach the Dhamma by pictures to live in proper reference, but yet there is a more importand task: getting independend.
[Note that this isn't given for trade, exchangs, stacks or to be used by Vollkoffer, but for an escape from such relations]

Some answers have already indicated what seems to be the point of view of EBT teachings: sense stimuli and sense doors are aflame; craving is an arrow; the phenomena connected with the aggregates are to be seen as a disease, as stressful, as a cancer.
Craving and attachments for any form or idea of yourself is a still craving for the senses or craving for becoming. That seems to be non-negotiable.
However, I think one let go in the proportion of our convictions and energies. The training is gradual and in accordance with our understanding and degree of clinging to the world.
I do not like to study the Dhamma from the perspective of Christian connotations of sin and guilt. Instead, there are just causes, consequences, conditions and phenomena arising from them, which can be classified as kusala and akusala depending on the nature of the underlying intention. It is kusala if slands towards renunciation, non-ill will (or good will) and non-violence (or compassion); if it's the opposite, it's an akusala deed.
Also, remember that lay people can still attain, at least, the first three stages of enlightenment, and the degree of the giving-up goes, as said before, with your own disposition to commit to the path. Art done for art sake can still be a part of an (non-fully) enlightened mind. But some deeds done with Right Intention can still be considered art, even when art was not done with the purpose of creating beauty for the senses; an example of this are the poetic verses and stanzas -supposedly- spoken by the Buddha or its disciples in many instances throughout the Nikayas.
I could be wrong, though. If that's the case, I'd appreciate any correction.
Kind regards!

To deny beauty in the world is to deny the very essence of dharma.
Art isn't a lie. Art is an expression and a magnification of what it is to live. Many artists focus on things that might be considered problematic from a Buddhist perspective, sure: their self-infatuations, their desires, their contempt for society, their raw emotions, their personal needs and wants. But even those are honest expressions of tanhā and dukkha, and art can take those expressions of misery and make them beautiful, pulling the pure out of the impure like a flower blooming out of dark soil.
The dharma is meant to abate our sense of misery, not increase it. When we reach a place where we feel the dharma is forcing us to choose between one misery and another, that is a sure sign that we need to reevaluate our understanding of the dharma.
I feel like you're dancing around issues of compassion: compassion for the rising urge of artistic self-expression; compassion for those selves who might be the subjects or recipients of that self-expression. Be gentle with yourself, and with others, and let the art rise naturally out of that. That brings the dharma into your art, which is all you really need.

We can illuminate the question of art from a completely independent perspective; the conclusions you might draw are equally independent, a state we have found necessary to our study in order to find truth.
The existence of art arises from the nature of our experiential reality, which in turn arises in everyone as an illusion reflecting the underlying truth. That truth is unreachable, by definition, but the illusion can be shared, molded, uncovered, discarded, recast, made more (or less) accurate, formed, reformed - the list of possibilities is endless.
Finding your way is the task we are all given at birth, and there are elements of the way that we can know in an ordinary fashion with some certainty. Such certainty doesn’t change the nature of the underlying truth, or the individual journey to discovery, but it can help illuminate and steady what one finds on the way.
As has already been described in several different ways, art is about reality. Art is communication, and communication depends on the nature of the illusory reality we’ve been born to inhabit - in ground state terms, language is made possible by the reality we inhabit.
All that is more or less easily demonstrable in the ordinary world most inhabit (it took us 50 yrs. to nail down the details, so maybe less easily), and as we said, it doesn’t have much in what we can know of it that affects your search for truth. But it does have this: there are ordinary ways that the language we use to describe our reality can be extended, some obvious and simplistic, using language itself, and some that need a different, less obvious form to be effective.
Art exists for that purpose. If we removed it from our common illusion this moment, it would spontaneously arise in the next. It’s embedded in our use of language, which is to say it’s embedded in the nature of reality itself, as we can know it with words.
The problem with language, with the way it can distract and waylay the most earnest initiative, this is well recognized across most disciplines of self discovery. Art is a part of that puzzle, existing to extend our common models of reality in ways other methods cannot, but it is, as are these words, still an artifact of our ability to use complex abstract language.
Any effects that words might have on your journey should be expected of art as well. There isn’t anything inherently ‘bad’ about art, any more than there is about language. What might be considered bad (in some circumstances) or distracting, or an impediment to your search for truth, all these arise in how language, in all its forms, reflect the inner intent of those who use it.
It seems to us the answer is to know your intent, and choose to use it wisely. Pursuing any art form is communication, not really different than sitting in a room filled with conversation, even if you’re alone. If quiet is what you need, listen to what you’re saying with art, and decide if it’s quiet enough to let you find what you’re searching for, and not so distracting as to break the spell.
One last bit: a corollary to the proposition that the purpose of art is to extend our common shared model of reality (therefore extending language itself) is this: there is no such thing as secret art.
Any art you create has the intent to communicate to others, and it’s been understood for perhaps 100K yrs. that art can be a vehicle to communicate that intent to one’s self. That might have been it’s origin, in the earliest drawings on the walls of caves, a search to find and understand the inner self not unlike your own.
Good luck, and peace.  —Tom and Kay

Art is not evil or sinful. Art is not good or virtuous. Art is just art.
Art is just an expression of ideas and thoughts. It, in itself, has no ability to be anything in its own right.
The only thing that is either good or bad about art, and about anything else in the world, is your intention.
A knife is not evil. But it can kill. It can also cut vegetables, or carve a state of The Buddha. It has no property of good or evil, only what you intend to do with it.
Is your intention in creating art wholesome or self serving? Is it to bring joy to the world or to serve your own personal gratification?


text:
Wrong meanings commonly associated with the notion of Gratitude
What are the common/widespread wrong meanings that people associate with or assign to the word 'gratitude'?
As we know, the society is made up largely of families, and those in turn are made of up relationships, which most commonly are underlied by sexuality, in turn often being related to guilt, as well as guilt based manipulations and control mechanisms. At the same time, we are inclined and even obliged to feel grateful towards our loved ones. So it is safe to assume that the obligation to be grateful and patterns of guilt (or other) based manipulations co-occur, and therefore can and probably tend to interact. And therefore it is also safe to assume that at least some part of the human species if suffering from views and actions rooted in a wrong understanding of gratitude.
Now, gratitude being such an important pillar of Enlightened teaching, what are some common roots and symptoms of false Gratitude which we should mindfully observe and then root out?

Gratitude conventionally manifests in the context of gift-giving.

AN8.31:1.1:  “Mendicants, there are these eight gifts.
AN8.31:1.2: What eight?
AN8.31:1.3: A person might give a gift after insulting the recipient.
AN8.31:1.4: Or they give out of fear.
AN8.31:1.5: Or they give thinking, ‘They gave to me.’
AN8.31:1.6: Or they give thinking, ‘They’ll give to me.’
AN8.31:1.7: Or they give thinking, ‘It’s good to give.’
AN8.31:1.8: Or they give thinking, ‘I cook, they don’t. It wouldn’t be right for me to not give to them.’
AN8.31:1.9: Or they give thinking, ‘By giving this gift I’ll get a good reputation.’
AN8.31:1.10: Or they give thinking, ‘This is an adornment and requisite for the mind.’
AN8.31:1.11: These are the eight gifts.”

The first seven of these ways are somewhat "transactional" and often driven by assessment of gain/loss. Identity is therefore involved along with all attendant suffering. Indeed, there is a certain wrongness about suffering. And with such gifts one might say, "thanks for the gift" while feeling, "I wish for better and I will never wear that". Conventional gratitude is often entangled in wrongness arising out of attachments.
However, the eighth way is quite remarkable. Thinking "this is an adornment and requisite for the mind," one might be grateful for a single breath and live without wishes in this very moment.

Good householder asks in an enviroment where even gratitude for low goodness is denied. What does he expect to be capable to grasp the topic rightly if bond to such circumstances? How ever, for those capable to get healed:
The gratitude toward being given sensuality, is a gratitude that bind one in the world, makes one the servant of Mara. The gratitude toward wrong views, a gratitude that honors the food for defilements, is a gratitude that turns one downwardly. The gratitude toward giving sort lasting happiness is a gratitude the leads one to go after such...
If interested there are some points of kinds of giving, goodness, guṇa.
Proper respect and veneration means understanding gratitude: Respect and veneration
And it's because ordinary people feeling gratitude in regard of what has no essence, doesn't lead to essence, that essence and what leads to it isn't seen.
Much done is there, not really possible to repay:

"Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to a person. Which three? Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus.

"Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness.
"Again, bhikkhus, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to this person.
"Bhikkhus, it is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites."

[Note that this isn't given for trade, stacks, exchange and not for use for Vollkoffer, but for an escape from this wheel]

You should feel grateful to the circumstances which led to your freedom from Samsara. Within the samsara you should be grateful to those who led you on the path of liberation like Buddha. Wrong gratefulness will include gratefulness to the circumstances which led you attachment towards the samsara. Within the samsara , wrong gratefulness will include being grateful to those who led you astray from the path of liberation like Mara.

The first thing that comes to mind is that people might be going out of their way in the name of gratitude.
Also the notion of gratitude or a perceived lack of gratitude is something that can be used as leverage.
Ie a person can do something for another which is not easy to repay or they might actually make themselves unavailable to be repayed in many ways.
I believe that some people might be more comfortable being owed more so than being payed back because the dynamic of the relationship changes quickly if they lose that lender's status.
It might even happen that a person will hassle one about a debt and when one attempts to repay they will forgive it right there & then.
Another circumstance is when one might do something for another and damn near use it against him and even if he has been repayed or if attempts at repayment have been made, the lender might not agree that he has been compensated in full.
Ive read that Buddha said something like; "Don't sacrifice your own welfare for the welfare of another, no matter how great. Clearly know your own welfare and be intent on the highest good".
Therefore it is crucial to be certain about what is owed and how it is to be repayed.
I've read in a Buddhist text something close to that one's parents aren't easy to repay and rather impossible to repay by means of carrying them on one's shoulder's. However if one ie was to establish a stingy mother in generosity then one more than repayed them.
I think this is a good example of having a strong constitution.
If one's parents ie say: "We don't want you to be meditator doing asceticism. You owe us. We don't want to listen to your preaching, who do you think you are thinking you will teach your parents and  why don't you just marry a good girl, it would be good for you and we can have grandchildren.."
Another thing i recall from Buddhist studies is something like: "it is foolish to pick up a burden which isn't one's to carry and it is likewise foolish not to pick up a burden which is supposed to be picked up."
Another example of how gratitude might be used in manipulation is if a person goes to some general population prison and is housed with some big dude who shows kindness as he gifts items like chocolate, smokes & coffee and then one day asks for some sexual favors, saying something like: "i scratched your back, why don't you return the favor? You aren't ungreatful, are you?".


text:
How do handle termite/white ant
Buddhism most basic perception is avoid killing.
Assume the house is filled by termite and killing is unavoidable, assume house is too badly affected and without killing need the house to be left unoccupant for months and repair is very expensive.
This is question is meant for normal lay Buddhist and not monk.
How is Buddhism handle in this case ?
There was a Mahayana Buddhist Scholar answered is to recite Mantra to the ants that been killed as much as possible n hope ants can incarnate to a better place.

May be this answers ur question https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/87/is-killing-vermin-and-insects-justifiable?r=SearchResults

@The White Cloud doesnt seem like the answer. I think just avoid killing high consciousness animal or sentient. Will see immediate karma like dog or cat. If captured killing online n posted on fb will keep u suffer enough. Well, I stop eating pork also cause it's high consciousness animal too.

Sounds similar to this question, you may want to check out the answers: if a buddhist should not kill a mouse living in their home, what justification do they have to rid themselves of a parasite such tapeworms?

Keep your area as clean as possible. Many forest monks always keep their area dry and clean. No puddle, no food crumbs, put wet trash can away from the area.

it happened to my house that tenanted by someone. Very dirty tenant. i just use those pest spray but not direct to ant. Hope they r not dizzy n died. @Stargazer Cybertech

Well... It never been easy for lay person. Even a buddhist king must sometime put a death penalty to a crime. Just do the best we can to avoid those killing situations.

Life wants to promote life. That too a very special life . A life which is free of diseases and dirt. A life which is holy. But if your house is infested with termites then probably you have karmic problems.
For example , there was a locust attack in Saudi Arabia, Africa , Pakistan , India etc ..millions of hectares of crop  got eaten by those insects. Why do you think that happened ? It was our karma in some ways.
Life would generally not interfere in your holy pursuit but if it happens then it means you may have become impure in some ways.
So what should be done? As a layperson you will obviously kill those insects for survival and if you are serious about Dhamma then you will commit to 8 fold path and never intentionally kill any insect.

Well, about the Karmic problem statement, it is a truth statement. But, my teacher told us do not stuck into that statement but rather look into best solution and treat it as training background. There are some stressful old folks that I shared Buddhism to them have some negative response on this as they always stuck into this karmic problem from their past life and keep on complaining of their issues.

cessation of karma is possible(is desirable) if we strictly follow the noble 8 fold path.

Assume.... killing is unavoidable. How is Buddhism handle in this case ? This is question is meant for normal lay Buddhist and not monk.

Buddhist texts don't instruct to kill or offer any way to kill properly, you are out of your mind.
That being said, if you are going to do it, then do it knowing it is wrong action and don't fool yourself.
If you are inclined to do it then also be honest about what this tells about you as a "Buddhist". Things like you are probably not very much restrained by conscientiousness, not seeing much danger in transgressions, lacking urgency, mindfulness of death not well established, cruelty, greed and general lack of development of the spiritual faculties like faith & judgement.
You should also reflect on this action before, during and after doing it. It is very blameworthy and you should have a lot to think about.
Perhaps after due reflection your mind will be inclined to abstain from killing. Perhaps the reason that you are in this situation where nature took over your house is because you keep doing bad actions.
Anyway if you practice Buddhism correctly you will get great fruition. If you don't you will have a bad destination.
I won't tell you to do it and not worry about it. The only way one gets to do it and not worry about it too much, is if you then stop completely like Angulimalla and even he suffered rather excessively for his killings.
Hell or animal womb is still an option for many people... Death is soon, we shouldn't be packing our bags with dead ants.
You might die before you kill these ants and just because one is thinking about these things one will have a bad throw if one was to pass away.
Therefore one shouldn't even entertain such thoughts, let alone doing it and all...

The five precepts are a training in virtue (sila) undertaken to purify the mind. The first precept is a training undertaken to not take a life intentionally. This applies to human life and also animal life, basically, any sentient beings with the five aggregates.
The one undertaking the precepts should try his best. If he lapses, then without feeling remorse, he should try his best the next time to mindfully stay with the training.
That said, killing an animal is not treated the same way as killing a human in Buddhism. In the Bhikkhu Patimokkha, the training rules for monks, killing a human being is grounds for immediate and irrevocable expulsion for life (parajika) from the monastic order. However, killing animals is an offense that requires only a confession (pacittiya).

Exchange of self and other... will open the dhamma door of the Tri-ratna as your teacher.
Termite: What? Ima greedy lil pig eating here... This one thing and this one thing only... pooping my breathing as I go along filling in the wood behind me.
How is it not the samadhi you should be practicing? "Human".
Go ahead and kill it but imagine the self you cling to there instead; So it can attain your precious human form and practice with it just as it was previously doing, without the eating of wood and poop for breath of course.
That's a practice of a bodhisatta people don't even speak about; instead known to preach "ethics" as if life itself is a moral dilemma all of it's own as it arises and passes into being and not being.
Countless corpses at my feet; how dare anyone call it anything dishonorable as sand... it knows it was a mountain on the furthest shore; I just don't have the tongue for it even though, it could be mistaken for vanilla ice cream.


text:
The New Age Philosophy of Evolution stating that working towards Thoughtlessness and Nothingness is fundamentally Flawed
Though this video is in Hinglish - some casual dialogues are in Hindi but most of the conversation happens in English https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uf-eoAij5o , Anand Gandhi - Director and Scriptwriter for the philosophical movie "Ship of Theseus" gives a perfect explanation of what we have to do as humans, Purpose of Life, and in fact, argues that attaining the nothingness or the thoughtlessness is fundamentally wrong using evolution theory. Is there an opposition argument to what he has stated?

"The freedom of my swinging arms ends at your nose."
This video promotes the value of developing consciousness beyond personal concerns into a consciousness that embraces the world around us.  In the suttas, one reads the equivalent:

AN9.33:6.2: If someone should say, ‘I do not know or see where the perception of the dimension of infinite space ceases’,  they should be told:  ‘It’s when a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite space, aware that “consciousness is infinite”, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite consciousness.  That’s where the perception of the dimension of infinite space ceases.’

Infinite space is unsatisfactory when one's swinging arm hits another's nose. Infinite consciousness is aware of noses and arms and also aware of the time for swinging arms or stepping forward with noses.
Notably, the suttas continue beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. With increasing consciousness we discover that costs and benefits are mixed. Hunting skills lead to obsession with video games that produce no actual food. Huntington's disease leads to lower risk of cancer. Consciousness mitigates some suffering but doesn't end it. The suttas go on to describe what lies beyond infinite consciousness.

AN9.33:7.2: If someone should say, ‘I do not know or see where the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness ceases’, they should be told: ‘It’s when a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that “there is nothing at all”, enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness. That’s where the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness ceases.’

The dimension of nothingness should not be experienced as life-ending nihilistic apathy.

SN54.9:3.3: Becoming horrified, repelled, and disgusted with this body, they looked for someone to slit their wrists.

Instead, the Buddha taught:

SN54.9:7.2: In the same way, when this immersion due to mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s peaceful and sublime, a deliciously pleasant meditation. And it disperses and settles unskillful qualities on the spot whenever they arise.

So the Buddha might agree with the video in that fiercely grasping at nothingness is silly (i.e., "bulls**t" in the video). But the Buddha also noted that infinite consciousness itself is ultimately impermanent and unsatisfactory, and certainly not an end to suffering.

Of course.  Buddhism isn't beholden to evolutionary theory!  What makes evolution the standard bearer for what constitutes right livelihood?

Theory of Evolution is not a theory at all. Just listen to what it essentially says, it says that things are the way they are because other ways died out(Natural Selection). That is not any logic at all.Although things change based on past karma, we can't say that the modern theory of evolution is correct.
The discussion on youtube link is very basic and doesn't even start to acknowledge Dhamma.
Dhamma doesn't say the purpose of human existence is thoughtlessness or feelinglessness.

I haven't seen the video yet, but I'd say that no scientic theory would be able to tell us how are we supposed to live or what is valuable to follow and what to abandon. Science shows what is the world and what is the relation between its parts; philosophy, ethics, spirituality and religion try to give us a "why" should we follow one way of life or other.
Another question is whether is or not possible to attain complete liberation from dukkha. Probably most buddhist would say that it possible. But I'm not sure if the Theory of Evolution would be able to demonstrate the reality of that possibility. If there's a branch of scientific research that could give us some answers, I'd say that it's Neuroscience and science of cognition in general.