text:
Infidelity and Forgiveness guidance
My husband cheated on me after 3 years of marriage.  I've decided to stay for all the other things he is and does.  Buddhism has helped in all other facets in my life. What would the Buddha advise me to do, what tools would he suggest in overcoming the betrayal of trust, the lying and find my way back to a happy partnership with someone I believe deserves the forgiveness.  I no longer want to speak to him in a way which I feel that is punishing for his transgression.  Please help.

According to the Buddha, confessing one's misdeed, seeing the fault and blameworthiness in that misdeed, and resolving not to transgress again is considered a maturing, a growth in a person. So too is the ability to accept that confession, forgive the person and harbour no malice.
I hope your husband understands the hurt he has caused you after making a solemn vow of fidelity, and that he has resolved to never do that again.
Now that you have decided to continue stay married, the Dhamma would tell us to let go of thoughts such as 'he cheated on me, he lied to me, he betrayed me'. For holding on to such thoughts will not allow you to find peace and move forward. Re Dhammapada verses 3 and 4.
I did a search on Google a little while ago and according to the results the estimate is that 30% of married men will. Ofcourse the results will vary based on location. I am currently in Sydney.
Also some studies have shown that 1 in 4 or even 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce.
So relationships are risky business, but they can be rewarding too. People make mistakes. However having the maturity to, admit the mistake, have the insight to see the error in it, and forgive and continue to move forward together lovingly is the Buddhist way, but it takes two.
If one party is continually failing to hold up their part, the Buddha says it's better to live alone, our find suitable companions. Also even in relationships we are adviced to practice being an island unto ourselves. For all meetings end in parting.
I recall watching a talk by Ajhan Brahm on this topic some time ago. Perhaps you might find that useful.
No matter what you do, don't live in regret and with thoughts of anger.
In addition you will find it useful developing the practice of the 5 daily recollections recommended by the Buddha.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html
I wish you well.

It is possible that there are answers directly in scripture relating to your situation.  If there are, I am not aware of them.
There is some guidance that is in the spirit of Buddhist awareness that I can offer you with regards to some of the spaces you are likely to go through.
Real Buddhist practice can be the most transformative when dealing with emotional unpleasantness.  It is as if during times of stress, our mind reacts like a hornets nest being hit with rocks.  "Stuff" gets stirred up; and long supressed emotional conflicts and past traumas seem to rise up to the surface -

If you wish to understand yourself, you must succeed in doing so in the midst of all kinds of confusions and upsets. Don’t make the mistake of sitting dead in the cold ashes of a withered tree. - Enyo

I suggest throughout your path of forgiveness, you keep the spirit of that quote  in front of you.
When you try and bulldoze through upsets and constantly overcome emotional setbacks, it's easy to get swept up in the mess of thoughts and feelings - and easy also perhaps to stop caring; or to lose sight of the spiritual possibility that gives you power to face what frightens you.  I find that if I treat my upsets as an opportunity for awareness and awakening, I have much more power in traversing the dangerous territory of the mind.
For now, I will refer to you as two - I will say it when referring to your mind ( to MIND ) and you when referring to possibility of being who you really are ( to SELF ).
It is nasty.  It will attempt in many insidious ways to sabatoge your goal.  You wish to forgive, and it will do what it can to try and make sure that doesn't happen.
Your goal is forgiveness.  It's goal is survival.  It will attempt to protect you from getting hurt again using whatever resources it can.  It does not want you to be free.  It wants you to be safe.
You may find that yourself in an argument with your husband about something totally unrelated to the infidelity - and it will start chattering away.  "Well what does he know anyway?  He cheated.  Why do I even trust him?  He might be lying to me right now."
If every time thoughts like that arise, you try and suppress them; overcome them; or the like, you will lose the opportunity of awareness.  What will give you freedom is if you can find a way to give space to those thoughts without succombing to them or trying to overcome them.  If you can just let them be, they will lose their potency and your awareness will expand.
You might also find it thinking negative thoughts about you.  "I'm such a fool.  He doesn't even love me.  Why am I forgiving him?"  It is the same thing, the target is just reversed.
If you deal with these thoughts as the TRUTH - you will be trapped, a helpless victim of it's whims and fancies.  However if you permit these thoughts to exist; recognize them for what they are; and allow them to be - as it talking - then you will gain freedom.  The more space you have for what you consider to be the worst parts of yourself - the more your awareness will expand - and forgiveness will stop being the right thing to do or a good idea and become a natural freeflowing expression of your Self.
It is very difficult.  From my perspective, infidelity is one of the most difficult upsets, because the emotions that get triggered tend to be the most primal and the most deeply rooted.  If, however, you find a way to give yourself space - not once, but repeatedly - then this can become a most transformative experience.
The last bit I have to offer is this:  You chose to forgive.  You didn't have to choose that, and many people don't - and I suspect the majority of people who do don't have the awareness to confront it head on as you are.  Your word given freely has a great deal of power.  If you relate to your word as a sacred promise independent of any emotional state or discomfort you feel, this too can help you guide yourself.
As you chose this freely, you get to be the author of your destiny; not a victim who is at the effect of something or a bystander watching your emotions overcome you.  Because you said, "I choose to forgive", that is solid ground you can stand on.  That is you.  It would not say that.

It's impossible to know what the Buddha would have said, but to make a guess, he would have looked into your mind to see what faculties are developed, what are lacking, what  inclinations and latent tendencies you have etc. Then he would have given you a customized sermon to put you on the path to end of all suffering.
A lay disciple of the Buddha would say, if your husband broke the precept, he would have to suffer for that Karma in the future. You don't have to punish him yourself. The grief and the disappointment you are experiencing is a result of your past bad Karma. Samsara is so long that the amount of tears you have shed for heatbreaks like this is greater than the water in all the oceans.
Dhammapada -213 comes to mind:

From affection springs grief, from affection springs fear. For one who
  is wholly free from affection there is no grief, whence then fear?

The Buddha preached about 7 types of wives to Sujatha, the daughter-in-law of Anathapindika. One of the good wives out of the seven is the motherly-wife:

(matusama or matubhariya) – she treats her husband like her son in
  every way, being compassionate and kind, as well as caring responsibly
  after his wealth;

A person who lets his desires overcome his sense of shame and fear(of consequences) is like a kid who goes after things by instinct. He's no longer a matured adult. So you have to act like a motherly-wife and try to bring him to the Dhamma. Practice compassion with wisdom, teach him the demerits of breaking the precepts and try to make him understand how his actions will ruin his life and your relationship.


text:
Can a Buddhist use antibacterial soap?
During my college humanities class, I learned some things about Buddhism, which I had not had exposure to before. My teacher would sometimes tell us stories about field trips he would take with the class to a local Buddhist temple. In one such story, he said that he asked the cute Buddhist that worked at the temple if Buddhists were allowed to use antibacterial soap.
From his story, she apparently didn't find that very funny, but he was left without an answer.
I understand that Buddhist's are not allowed to kill. Does this include microscopic living organisms that would be alive on your hands? In other words, what is the answer to his question, "Can Buddhists use anti-bacterial soap?"

How such questions are getting up voted is beyond me. Please note that common sense comes first, then Buddhism. Buddhism is not a religion. They are guidelines telling you what to do to reach Nirvana or atleast lead a good life. In fact Buddhism has a lot of common sense in it.

@BlackFlam3 So you think that this is a bad question? Downvote it then, that's the point of the button. I don't think it is, that's why I've asked. I read answers on here that said a lion creates bad karma for itself when it kills to survive, I don't understand how we, with such intellect and understanding, would not be creating bad karma in this way then. That's why I'm asking, to achieve this understanding.

Do you know the sect of the temple in question?

@MatthewMartin The temple website states they teach in a nonsectarian format.

oh, very helpful. I'll update my answser.

I asked a similar question to a Bikshu once - if a tiger is coming to attack me and I have a knife in hand, should I kill the tiger or should I  let it kill me. He said it depends. If I would be causing more Dukkha by letting it kill me(i.e by dying & cause dukkha vedana to my family & friends), then I should not do that. I feel same can be said about killing bacteria. Do I want to get sick & die causing more dhukkha to people who depend on me? It depends on which action causes lesser dukkha.

In Mahayana, the key distinction is sentient beings vs non-sentient beings. So plants and bacteria would be non-sentient beings and there would not be a violation of the first precept. And eating bacteria wouldn't be a violation of the 3rd minor precept. I'd note that in the linked translation, the 1st precept also is qualified by "sentient beings".
It is also worth nothing that Buddhism is not a homogeneous thing with homogeneous followers, so over time people and Buddhists have learned more about science and had to react to it. Sometimes this means ancient science got incorporated into the religion, such as beliefs/theories about the biological mechanisms of reproduction, or theories about circulation in the body. As a modern Buddhist, I'd dispense with the ancient, incorrect science and think about what ancient Buddhist would have said about biology if they were better informed with modern science. (And I'm not talking about science vs religion here, I'm talking about, what if ancient thinkers knew about bacteria and the cognitive capacities of bacteria)  I think they would deem bacteria insentient and incapable of suffering.
I don't know why the lady at the temple didn't like the question. If it was a Mahayana temple, reasonable chance they felt they were being mocked for following a silly rule. The person asking the question was a half step away from asking "To what extremes would you go to practice your silly religion?" or another common subtext when the topic is nitpicky rules "Gee, you must think you're so much better than us people who use anti-bacterial soap"
If this was a Shin temple, strict following precepts is a waste of time, only faith in the power of Amida will show results. In that case, the lady was just annoyed that the guy did the equivalent of going to a Christian Church and asking what Christians have against eating pork and why Christians wear
Burkas and why they worship cows.
UPDATE. This is an American/Vietnamese temple, which appears to be a mix of immigrant and non-immigrant Buddhism, crossing Zen, Vajrayana, Mahayana, but mostly Mahayana. In this context, bringing up bacterial soap means you want to either agree with someone about vegetarianism or fight with them about it. So if you aren't confrontational, you don't fight with them about it. The stats on vegetarianism among American Buddhists is dodgy, but is ballpark of ~25% which is ten times higher than the general population (give me a specific sect and that can be adjusted higher or down to nearly 0-- non-Japanese East Asian Buddhism is pro-vegetarian, the rest are anti-vegetarian). By the way, if this whole question is about vegetarianism, refer to the pre-existing questions & answers.
Speaking of pre-existing answers, this question about the status of bacteria has been asked before.

There istance a monk with psychic ability looked into the water and saw there were microbes and asked the Buddha if drinking will harm them. Buddha said don't look and drink.
One intention of Buddhist morality is the stabilize the mind so it is free from remorse and so it can develop concentration and wisdom.
So if you use antibacterial soap without much thought there are microbs and intention of killing microbes then there will be not issue.

Is there a citation where I can read more about this?

I think a citation is required most learned friend Suminda. This 'don't look and drink' sounds suspicious.

This is was taught when I was in school. I cannot remember if it was part of a text books but was in the context of using the strainer and Jain practices. Though Mind in Buddhist Psychology - Unchecked by Sangharakshita has something in the spirit of what I said it is not as blunt as do not look and drink. More detail perhaps look at Vinaya rules regarding to the use of the strainer.

The bodhisattva precepts forbid the killing of "sentient beings". Bacteria is not sentient so I see no problem with using antibacterial soap. It is also rather difficult to avoid killing bacteria through daily living. So, it would be extreme, if not impossible, to try to kill all bacteria around you.

I understand that Buddhist's are not allowed to kill.

This is a general misunderstanding, or lack of correct understanding in this Buddhist notion. It contains at least two aspects: a) due to compassion, killing should be forsaken which is against compassion. b) killing will produce bad effect, it won't solve the problem, for a harmful action won't produce good result, as a poisonous tree can't produce eatable fruit.
So,

Can a Buddhist use antibacterial soap?

It's not really the big deal, or the main issue. The issue is antibacterial soap won't help in eliminating contamination, or benefit health (consider notion b). because the bacterial will evolve and become anti-antibacterial, we see this in medical reports. Likely antibacterial soap is also a marketing gimmick too, like toothpaste for man, toothpaste for woman, for kids, baby girls... etc.
If one wants to be healthy and not infected, it's not to use antibacterial soap, it's to build up one's physical strength, health condition, becomes immune to any disease or infections. During the Black Death, many died, but some survive, why? During SARS, a patch died, but some were immune instead some even carriers of the virus, why? Buddha has the answer but it would be too off (too advance?) for modern men they can only label it: superstitions.

O once saw a forum saying that you can't kill anything or it's bad karma. But what if you do it with good intentions and afterwards clear the karma you gained. E.g. A mantra for removing bad karma?

This doesn't seem to be an answer, is it? Is it an answer ("Can a Buddhist use antibacterial soap?") ... or, is it a question ("What if you do it with good intentions and afterwards clear the karma with mantra for removing bad karma?")?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Shaking REM and movement
i Wanted to know what kind of experience i had today while i meditated.
I meditated after a long time and it lasted 1,5 hours. I started shaking after a while, then twitching my eyes, REM and after some time i started moving.. It was n a rythm. sometimes sideways, sometimes down towards the floor and so on. And when i wanted to stop my meditation i came back to my first position, then shaking, eyemovement, twitching and back to normal. Did something like this happen to anyone? Is it a good or a bad sign?
Thanks :)

Possible duplicate of I get rapid eye movement as soon as meditation starts, and of eye movement during meditation

In short this can be due to:

past fabrications surfacing rapidly and creating uncommon experiences
perhaps less likely but a possibility is Piti which sometimes create vibrating and / or pulsating experiences

Also see: eye movement during meditation, I get rapid eye movement as soon as meditation starts
These experiences are neither good nor bad. Also do not get attached or averse to them. In additions concentrate on the task at hand than giving importance and distracting your self when there experiences do arise in your meditation session.

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


text:
How to achieve consciousness in nirvana?
If achieving “nirvana” means that we will be liberated from the illusion of consciousness, how then will we know (be conscious of) our achieving this “nirvana”? How can we be “conscious” of this, if “consciousness” will no longer exist?

http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/232/111

At the point of Nirvana consciousness ceases momentarily and starts again when you come out of the Phala Samapatti. At this point you see the the collapse and reforming of the links of Conditional Relations / Dependent Origination.

how then will we know (be conscious of) our achieving this “nirvana”?

You have seen the cessation of the 5 aggregates and start of it through full experiential knowledge of seeing the working of cause and effect.

How can we be “conscious” of this, if “consciousness” will no longer exist?

You need not be conscious about Nirvana but you insight into cause and effect will make a paradigm shift in your outlook about the 5 aggregates.
Also see: How does stream entry occur?
Also following quote might be of interest. This is slightly explained in more detail during the 20 day course.

What do you think is the ultimate goal of Vipassana?
SNG - The ultimate aim is to clean the mind. Nirvana is beyond mind and matter. It can come to you anytime depending on how pure you are. In that state, all your senses stop functioning. It could be for a second, a minute, or longer, but for that brief period, you are beyond all sensation, all thought.
-S N Goenka, from interview published in the 'life positive' magazine.

Nirvana is the end of greed, hatred & delusion. Consciousness is not an "illusion". What is an "illusion" is delusion. When Nirvana is attained, the mind remains consciousness. You can read here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.053.than.html
Best wishes

In certain sects of buddhism, there is the theory that there are ten worlds ranging from hell to buddhahood. Each of these "worlds" however, is really a life state, or living condition that exists inside of one's self. The tenth world, buddhahood, is also called nirvana. If one is in this state, one is without delusion, but still conscious and able to go about daily life.
Additionally, not all sects of buddhism's goal is to "free one's self from the delusion of consciousness", but to instead be truly happy and help others. In this sect, there is another "theory" called the ten factors. They are what the true entity of all phenomena consist of, and, if correctly using the ten factors, one is freed from delusion. If you want to learn more about the ten factors, this website gives a much better description than I am able to: The Ten Factors
I hope this answers you question well!


text:
First Lay Teachers
I'm hearing of lay people becoming  enlightened by the Buddha but did any of them become Lay Dhamma Teachers? When where the first lay teacher(s) of the eightfold path?

Never was there a real lay-teacher, as my nature such is impossible (one may think only on impossibility to live a lay life as Arahat). Such is only a modern appearance and for the most often very "corrupt".

food on it here to be found: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=lay+teacher

The problem with "lay dhamma teachers" is that people don't take you seriously as a spiritual guide, if you are still a householder who's unable to give up sexual activities, gold etc. There might have been lay people who taught the Dhamma to small groups, but when there are many enlightened monks around, you don't get much recognition.
In any case,  a lay person who has attained enlightenment is a positive influence to his friends and relatives.
Ex: King Pukkusati learning about the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha from his friend king Bimbisara; Anatapindika influencing his son Kala to listen to the Dhamma; Visakha's influence on her husband's family.

o this female during Buddha's time came to my mind.  Im not sure how to spell her name correctly ( Khujjuttara) or something like that.  She was Queen Samavathi's servant (king Udena).  Her back was hunched a  little.   She used to embezzle money from Queen Smavathi when queen assigned her to buy flowers from the market.  One day she heard Buddha's teaching and became a stream enterer.  She went to the queen and confessed her crime.  Queen forgave her and asked her to recite Buddha's teaching.  Since queen could not leave the palace (i assume she stayed in a harem),  she would sent this servant to listen to Buddha's teachings (since her deformity allowed her to leave the palace) and come back to tell the queen and her ladies.  Lady Khujjutara was one of the earliest lay teacher i could think of.

Citta is a famous lay householder who has even taught monks, for example, in SN 41.1, SN 41.5 and SN 41.7.
The monks he taught, stated:

“You’re fortunate, householder, so very fortunate, to traverse the
  Buddha’s deep teachings with the eye of wisdom.”

In SN 41.8, he states that he has achieved mastery of the fourth rupa jhana.
SN 41, called Cittavagga, contains 10 suttas dedicated to the life of Citta.

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


text:
The Nine Devices
I was reading The Lotus Sutra the other day and I came across Shakyamuni referring to "nine devices" as a way of teaching and leading people towardsed "the great vehicle", but upon looking the term, "the nine devices" up on the internet, I didn't find anything about the nine devices that he was refering to in the Lotus Sutra. Below is the passage it came from:

Here, the Buddha is preaching to Shariputra and a croud of nearly all of his deciples during the first of the three meetings in two places. "For those of dull capacities who delight in a lesser teaching, who greedily cling to birth and death, who, despite the innumerable buddhas, fail to practice the profound and wonderful way but are perplexed and confused by a host of troubles- for those I preach nirvana. I devise these expedient means and so cause them to enter into the buddha wisdom. Up to now I have never told you that you were certain to attain the buddha way. The reason I never preached in this manner was that the time to preach had not yet come. But now is the very time when I must decisively preach the great vehicle. I use these nine devices, adapting them to the living beings when I preach, my basic aim being to lead them to the great vehicle, and that is why I preach this sutra (68*).

He then goes on to other related topics, but doesn't say what the nine devices are. Does anyone know? Are they referenced in another sutra?
*This refers to page 68 in the Burton Watson translation of The Lotus Sutra.

Related reading: http://yuttadhammo.sirimangalo.org/2016/03/falsehood-and-lotus-sutra.html

I can see why those points were made in that blog, but I would say that really what is meant when Shakyamuni says that it's not a lie because it was for the right reason, what he really was inferring was that for all intensive purposes, it wasn't a lie and therefore shouldn't have any of the normally appliable connotations that one usually would have attached to a lie.

The blog post addresses this exact statement you just made :) Read till the end.

I did, maybe I missed something; I'll read it again :)

The nine devices are mentioned in the same chapter 2 of the Sutra, about 2 paragraphs above the excerpt you provided. Basically they are nine formats to present the teaching: sutras, verses, stories of the previous lives of disciples, stories of the previous lives of the Buddha, of unheard-of-things, origins, similes/parables, passages of poetry, and discourses.
An important thing to keep in mind is to always compare and verify any excerpt against the Nikayas (for Theravada practitioners) or the Agamas (for Mahayana practitioners) because these 2 sources are agreed by scholar monks from all schools to be the earliest, thus the closest to the Buddha's Teaching. Suttacentral.net is a great resource that provides cross references. Accesstoinsight.org is another excellent site, especially the Beginnings section for those who want to know more about the Tipitaka..

As for when you say to verify, is the Lotus Sutra generally seen as an outlier in terms of its ideology andnot always to be "trusted"

It's not an all or nothing kind of thing. The Lotus Sutra certainly has messages that are useful for one's practice. However, the fact is that it came later than those from the Nikayas or Agamas, and so it'd be wise to always reference the older sources. Matter of fact, the Buddha Himself taught us to always verify, see the Four Great Referrals in DN 16 (ref: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11652/what-should-you-do-when-someone-teaches-false-dharma )

Okay, thank you.


text:
Why didn't some of the previous Buddhas preach the code of discipline?
It is said that as some of the previous Buddhas did not set the code of discipline, the Dhamma did not last.

good question.  i might have read it somewhere too.  Buddha said for next Buddha, Ariyametra, his mind will not be directed towards setting code of discipline for sangha.  IMO, because that time, people will live in perfect 5 precepts and kind heart society.

You might find this link of interest friend Dewmini: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=bV3shLzx0B4C&pg=RA1-PA169&lpg=RA1-PA169&dq=sariputta+why+do+some+buddha%27s+dispensations+last+long+and+others+are+short&source=bl&ots=UMPmXsIJVM&sig=z8_n376jYdHeQx8M43Mqeekdk8U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVrOiv_YfMAhUi2qYKHRa-ADwQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=dispensations&f=false

The Vinaya pitaka is preached only if the life span is less than 50,000 years. When the life span is higher, the human world is said to be similar to heavens. The Buddhas usually introduce Vinaya rules when someone commits a misdemeanor. But the people are very virtuous during these times. So the need to introduce new rules does not arise.
Ironically, the Dhamma lasts longer when there's no Vinaya pitaka, due to the much longer life span.
Additional info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_CWFS-rca8

Hi Sankha, is there a Sutta source for this?

I would look in the Buddhavamsa.

So no code of discipline means no five precepts, no eight precepts.... . also?

@DewminiGunasekera No! They are observed in the society by default. The Buddha doesn't have to mention them specifically.

So what all Buddhas preached were things like evil actions, meritorious actions,right view/mind etc? As I see what all Buddhas preached is strictly a philosophy. A philosophy with normative statements, not with descriptive statements. Am I correct?

All Buddhas preach the Dhamma. But not always Vinaya, The Dhamma is what the Buddha understood by direct knowledge. So the word 'philosophy' might not be a good fit for it. The Dhamma consists of both normative and descriptive statements.


text:
How to not let the attachment to a self and its preferences influence the choice of a particular tradition in buddhism?
I have recently dedicated my life towards a search for an practice of a right livelihood. I was acquainted to buddhist philosophy before and set my mind on clearing any preconceived ideas about it and start from the very beginning available for me. Since there is absolutely no way to meet a teacher in person in the present for me, I tried to grasp the right understanding through various sources on the web, including this SE.
At first I was convinced that I should follow a Theravada practice. Doubts arose and sent me to an alternative path. This is, most likely a result of my ego, interested in a more profound modification of daily life with emphasis on real "personification" of the doctrine. This made me look for Zen tradition.
I believe this episode is just a way for me to perceive that any choice I make now will be a direct effect of the attachment to an ego. Thus, I am humble to notice that beautiful opportunity this doubt has brought to me in order tO seek for any available guidance right now.

So far as I know, this meta-topic Which type of Buddhism is for me? suggested that there's no objective way to answer that question.

I understand. I guess that, for a beginner, the self is primarily responsible for an initial attachment to a given tradition and, as one proceeds on the path, the deconstruction of a notion of a self will prove to be a desirable effect of the correct practices, leading to an assurance of the right choice or a need to look for other practices if otherwise.

This is just a suggestion, but in the Mahayana practice, there is a sect called the SGI. The followers consider them selves "lay-buddhists" and the goal of the practice is to atrain buddhahood and ultimately help create a world of world peace. The community in my experience is very supportive and a nice community to become apart of. I know that it is seen by some as a religion that doesn't have value and that the leader isn't enlightened, but part of the reason for that is because the sutra on which the SGI is based upon is the lotus sutra which is very different ideologically than that of many other sutras. In my opinion, the religion itself, since it doesn't have monks or nuns, as well as other common aspects of many religions, is more of a philosophy. The philosophy, in my opinion, has lots of depth and is very interesting. Here is a website if you want to learn more:
What the SGI is about:
http://www.sgi.org/our-story.html
The main website:
http://www.sgi.org


text:
I only know that I will know nothing: can that ever have any currency for Buddhists?
The Socratic / dialectical phrase:

I know one thing: that I know nothing.

If one were to subvert it to

I know one thing: that I will know nothing.

Is it a maxim that can guide practice, in any conceivable way?

Why does changing the tense subvert it?

cos it has a different meaning, is all

"A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but
  a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed." - Dhammapada 63

If a foolish person were to become aware that he is foolish, there is potential for spiritual growth. But the fool who thinks that he is wise, blocks himself from any spiritual development due to his delusion.

i like your answer, thanks. it is foolish to think you are living up to your values

It's good to be aware of whether you are keeping to your values, but overestimating yourself is what's meant here.

well, my point was that maybe keeping values isn't all you can do. but thanks for the reply :)

Not quite sure what you're looking for. The I will know nothing has positive effects in  the sense that it will allow us to lead life in a more common sense fashion. It also jogs our spiritual side in the sense that we observe ourselves and our surroundings more. We tend to quieten ourselves a bit more and be more humble with regard to the vast expanse that is the universe and us being the tiniest of tiny specks in it. We get back to the basics.
When we realize we don't know something we automatically start asking questions about it. To try to know what we don't know is in our nature. We are curious. A background process starts running in our mind questioning existence and everything in it. This aids our practice. Or rather our life becomes some sort of practice in itself. We tend to just feel this moment a bit more.

There are two benefits of recognizing self-ignorance: low-level and high-level.
The high-level is the recognition of one's fundamental ignorance. This is crucial for the Buddhist process because this is the very first step in the Buddhist process-of-becoming-who-we-are, the chain of causation and understanding that piece of philosophy. Read more about it for more info.
The low-level version is recognizing one's conventional/relative ignorance. This low-level version actually has the most practical benefit!
Here, this understanding of our relative ignorance has the benefit of being more compassionate towards others (as well all the other Brahmaviharas in some way), developing eagerness to learn the Dharma, being more open to new knowledge, being more aware of one's own mind and transgressions, and just overall being a good person because you know that you don't know so might as well do good!

I know one thing: that I will know nothing.

Even at "ultimate-level", it is mostly true because as the Diamond Sutra states, the person who is Enlightened, does not know of a person who is Enlightened. There is no ego, individuality, or a person, furthermore as the Heart Sutra says, there is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no knowledge, nothing. These were all illusions piled on top of illusions for the sake of leaving illusion..

This is agnosticism, a view that the Buddha explicitly calls stupid in the Brahmajala Sutta. I quote from my book, Conversations with the Buddha, p. 22 (see also p. 25):

"The ‘Eel Wrigglers’ (amaravikkheppika), which can also be translated as ‘endless equivocators,’ are agnostics who refuse to commit themselves to any view, but simply say, “I don’t say this, I don’t say that. I don’t say it is otherwise, I don’t say it is not. I don’t not say it is not.” This belief, if we can call it that, is based on the desire to avoid lying, attachment, and cross-examination, which comes simply from not knowing. These are the first three arguments. The fourth argument is because one is dull and stupid."

This view should be distinguished from the view that the dharma is trans-linquistic and trans-rational, although the two views are often conflated, especially by Western students.


text:
How does the Buddha define "atheist"?
As usually atheist is mean a belief that there is no god. Is there any definition by Buddha about atheist ? I read philosophy that inhumanity would called atheist really other than belief in god .

second statement is ambiguous

Atheism is a beluef there is no God. Theism is a belief there is God. Buddha was the first inner scientist who asked his disciples not to believe but find out through experience. I think Buddha's position is unique amongst all enlightened beings till his time. His radical departure from belief being the first requirement stands apart. His point was simple - you are miserable and you need to get out.

Load Buddha has never said creatures are miserable, he said Saṃsāra is miserable and get out of it.

lol Samsara is bliss if you are blissful. Samsara is a reflection of yourself. Looks like you have not tasted it yet. Be silent and you will know it. You cannot know it through words.

When Buddha says life is suffering it does not mean external world makes you suffer. it is the internal world which is the cause. One needs to fix it.

Atheism falls under ucchedavāda which was vehemently rejected by the Buddha. It is one of two extremes that Buddha avoided by revealing the middle way; Pratītyasamutpāda.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:.."
  -Kaccayanagotta Sutta

Great and precise answer with references. Thanks.

A language encodes in it an associated culture. Theism/Atheism binary does not apply to the Indic culture. God/no-God was not at all the central question for ancient Indians.
Rather it was who believed in the central philosophy(which may or many not involve God) and who did not. The term used is Āstika & Nāstika.

..the Buddhists themselves have branded only the Cārvākas as nastika.
  For example, Nagarjuna wrote in his Ratnavali, that nastikya
  (nihilism) leads to hell while astikya (affirmation) leads to heaven.
  Further, the Madhyamika philosopher Chandrakirti, who was accused of
  being a nastik, wrote in his Prasannapada that emptiness is a method
  of affirming neither being nor non-being and that nihilists are
  actually naive realists because they assume that things of this world
  have self-existent natures, whereas Madhyamikas view all things as
  arising dependently within the context of casual conditions.
There were also Buddhists that were accused of believing in ideas
  outside of the Buddha's teachings, and they were called nastika in the
  "Bodhisattvabhumi" (a section of the Yogacarabhumi by Asanga) and the
  scripture also declared they should be subject to isolation so their
  views do not infect the rest of the Buddhist community.

Source : Wikipedia - Āstika and nāstika

Buddhism accept there are deities in this sense it is not atheism but hold the position the deities have a finite life like any other being and are not alimity /  omnipotence (unlimited power), creator deity, omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness) which slants more towards atheism.


text:
Term for instructual terms
I don't know that the term, "instructual term" is the best way to describe what I'm trying to say, but basically, I'm curious as to what things such as "the four noble truths", "the ten factors", "the eightfold path", "the ten worlds", or "the five desires" are called. All that they have in common is that they have a number of parts -as indicated in their title- and then some sort of philosophical name for an abstract idea. Basically, I am justwondering if there is a term that broadly referes to things like what I listed above.

All these are collectively referred as the Dhamma.

And this page is titled "Dhamma Lists".

They might be called mātikā (Pali) or mātṛkā (Sanskrit), as defined e.g. here or here.
Or this article on Buddhist Lists says,

Towards the close of the Nikaya period, Buddhist literature begins to employ the term matika to signify composite matrices for lists. The careful analysis of these complex lists and their sub-categories becomes the basis and literary characteristic of the third basket of the Pali Canon, the Abhidhamma-pitaka, and of the particular system of thought set out in those texts and their commentaries, i.e., the Abhidhamma.

Andrei has used the word occasionally in his answers.

These are mnemonic lists to assist in the bulk memorization of huge dialogs without the help of writing.
Manjushri's mantra (Om A Ra Pa Ca Na Dhih), is suspected of being a mneumonic for a list of items, but the original details are lost to history.


text:
Why are buddhists hostile?
When ever you question something that is supposedly controversial, they tell you to read more on buddhism. They say that way, you could understand for yourself. But that is nonsense. If you call it that, they get extremely hostile. Why is a religion that keeps its followers in abject poverty (poor tibetan buddhists picture here) still makes them hostile when their beliefs are questioned?
I was born into a family and community where religion is not in the culture itself. No one talked about it because that irrational mental construct wasn't there. We were one of the most prosperous communities ever and still are. I would like to know what religion is real. But all of them seems to contradict each other and there is no basis for their beliefs. While buddhism is the worst according to the answers to my questions. Its not like my community is small either but there are a lot of us who drive fast cars and have a lot of fun.
In my thinking religion is a mind control virus. So, all this talk about going to hell and heaven is based on being controlled and the virus talking. See you in hell or, I mean which hell? They all contradict what hell is about so that is also a question I would like answered.

When ever you question something that is supposedly controversial, they tell you to read more on buddhism

Leaving aside Buddhism even in any forums if you ask some basic questions some may not always be motivated to answer. This response is nothing much to do with Buddhism but more to do with internet culture. This is termed as Help Vampires. See: The Help Vampire problem, Help Vampires: A Spotter’s Guide.
Generally people will answer question based on different motivation out of which some are the following:

if they are intellectually stimulating
is of interest to them
to be benevolent (if they think answering it will be of benefit and will not answer if they do not think answering it will make)
opportunity cost of time and effort to answer vs doing something else or perhaps answering another question
not too difficult for the person to answer
not beyond the person's understanding

Ultimately to get answers from Buddhists and anybody the way you put a question should be interesting enough to warrant an answer from the person you ask for taking the trouble to answer a question. Also be mindful of the capacity of the person you are asking, i.e., the question is not too elementary or too advance.

they tell you to read more on buddhism

This can be more effective and sometimes the best than trying to learn from someone who may not be too knowledgeable in Buddhism, if this is the reason they ask you to do it. I.e., the question is above their heads to answer.
Maybe you can try reading a book like: In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon, Edited and introduced by Bhikkhu Bodhi. This will give you an elementary to mid level knowledge about Buddhism.

They say that way, you could understand for yourself.

Buddhism has is system with is 3 folds:

theory
a practice to understand, experience and verify the theory at the experiential level
understanding gained by experiencing the theory through the practice

So it is a valid response to verify things for yourself. (Though not in the context when answering question on this site.)
Say there is a person who has not experienced some aspect of the teaching. If it is purely theoretical he may even have doubt if he understood it correctly. If such a person is asked what is so and so the better response would be to find out yourself than try to explain something the person does not have a full understanding himself. Understanding yourself the aspects would be more clearer than perhaps an explanation the person you ask might be able to give.
Also such understanding is 3 folds:

basic theoretical understanding by reading and learning
further understanding by logical induction
ultimate understanding through meditation, mental cultivation and development of wisdom

still makes them hostile when their beliefs are questioned?

A Buddhist, a non Buddhist, a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew or whatever you call yourself, people get attached to belief systems and  view. If you are not an Arahat then this is the natural reaction of any worldly person. If you challenge their view them they get offended or hostile.
Leaving a Buddhism aside link about discussing politics, sports, or any other topic these tendencies persist.
Just because you are a Buddhist you cannot get over these tendencies. To get over the you have to do Vipassanā and achieve the penetrating wisdom to overcome these tendencies. A person with no deep wisdom developed is in most cases subjected to perversions which can manifest as hostility. Someone who has not overcome these tendencies even they call the a Buddhism will have these tendencies.
More on perversion see: Vipallasa Sutta

Why is a religion that keeps its followers in abject poverty

Buddhism does not keep any body in poverty. The poverty in Tibet is due to its social, political and economic situations than to do with Buddhism.
If you take some african and some latin american countries many are non Buddhists but poverty still prevails.
There is a misconception about Buddhism that Buddhists are content hence do not make effort to progress. But if you take the perfection it contain determination and effort without which you cannot achieve any spiritual progress. This can be generalised to worldly and mundane endeavors also. Once you put in effort you should not get stressed out or saddened or emotional if things do not go your way. This is one thing achieved through desire or wishing, but only be realised through the practice of meditation or mental cultivation.

I would like to know what religion is real.

A religion you can verify there and now can be considered a real religion. Buddhism have meditation systems whereby you can ascertain the theory is infact real at an experiential level. When you verify something at the experiential level, you do not have to just believe something or have faith on something which you cannot verify.
Also Buddhism does not fit the traditional definitions of religion hence not considered by some as a religion.

But all of them seems to contradict each other and there is no basis for their beliefs.

There will be may contradicting view. Brahmajāla Sutta does mentions many forms of such conflicting religions view and their origin.

Its not like my community is small either but there are a lot of us who drive fast cars and have a lot of fun.

Enjoying life is not an issue. The issue arises when things do not go your way. They you may get emotional or stressed. This is the issue. I a sure you and your community would have felt some emotions of the other at some point of time.
Buddhism aims to make you mind balanced through wisdom so you do not lose the balance of your mind when things do not go your way.

In my thinking religion is a mind control virus. So, all this talk about going to hell and heaven is based on being controlled and the virus talking.

Some religions promise reward in heaven and damnation in hell or punishment as means to control people and beliefs. Buddhism does not do that. It just shows the repercussions of actions you take but it is up to you to burn your hand or not. Also this is not limited to belief but can be verified through meditation.

I mean which hell

Buddhism has multiple hells. One hell we can see are the animals. Some animals hunt others. So the hunted live in fear and when hunted they die in pain. There is also decies and famines which affect them. This is considered one form of hellish existence.

Do you think I should move this question to Meta, or leave it here: is it a question about Buddhism, or is it a question about asking and answering questions?

This is not about the site per say. It is about that OPs misconception about Buddhists and doubts resulting from them.

Perhaps it relates to a situation where the OP asked a question from a Buddhist and he lost his cool which the OP is stereotyping to all Buddhists.

Sadhu Suminda and may the OP be happy

To balance the more thoughtful, detailed answer I will try to succinctly say two things.
Buddhists are hostile because everyone is hostile. It is a human characteristic, not a Buddhist characteristic. But I appreciate the fact that Buddhist practices directly address the experience of and cessation of hostility. As someone who struggles with aversion, I really appreciate the idea of hostility  as a hindrances and finding that there are antidotes for hostility. If you want to explore this there are many sources which explain hindrances and antidotes in detail.
Also, I think that you are receiving hostile responses because your question is hostile. If you recognize that, you can reword your question and perhaps get helpful responses.

I don't want to argue, but my own experience has been that Buddhists are not "hostile".
For example, Is rebirth a delusional belief? was the first question I posted on this site, and people's answers to that question were not hostile.
I expect that whatever responses you get (from Buddhists as from anyone else) will be influenced by the way in which you phrase your questions.
FYI your questions seem to me hostile (as if you're anti-Buddhist), seem prejudiced (as if you've already decided that Buddhism is irrational), and as if you're posting either because you want an argument (with someone) or as if you simply want to make the argument that Buddhism is wrong.
You might get a more useful (and/or more friendly) response if you assumed that Buddhism is helpful and worth understanding, or if the reason why you're asking about it is because you already believe there's something good to know about it and you want to know more.
Also this is a question-and-answer site, not a discussion forum. "What is reincarnation?" might be a topic you'd like to discuss (or argue about), but people might be reluctant to discuss it, not because they're hostile but because discussion is not the purpose of this site. If you look at other topics, they consist of relatively small (answerable) questions with answers. "What is reincarnation?" might be too large a topic to answer ... for that reason it might be better to read something (elsewhere or on this site) about Buddhism, then if you want to ask a more specific question about something then do that.

Summer,
I am sorry to read about your hostile encounters with Buddhists. There are about 400 million people who claim to be Buddhists, give or take a few million. For some it's a conscious choice yet for many it's the environment that they were born into, much like a person would have a greater chance of being a Muslim if born in Saudi Arabi or a Catholic if born in Brazil.
To learn more about the Buddha's teaching you might be better served online, unless you have access to a learned compassionate teacher.
There are many site like accessto insight.org and dharmafarer.org. Personally i have found challenging Buddhist doctrine not an issue, but challenging Buddhist culture does provoke a different response.
Buddhists would do well to remember these words of the Buddha found in the Brahmajala Sutta DN1 "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?"
May you be happy.

Buddhism is not a religion. I'll say it again. I'll keep saying it. There is no mind control virus. It's your mind and your perception of your community. Open up your perspective and absorb more and come back with better questions rather than foolish assumptions. Following are your statements.

Why is a religion that keeps its followers in abject poverty (poor tibetan buddhists picture here)
I would like to know what religion is real. But all of them seems to contradict each other and there is no basis for their beliefs.
So, all this talk about going to hell and heaven is based on being controlled and the virus talking.

You seem to be focussed on Buddhism as a religion. Buddhism is not a religion. There. I said it again.
You seem to be concentrating on hell vs. your experience of life. First concentrate on the basic aspects of your life and mind and back it up with better reading and better  thinking.
Let's take this into perspective. Let's say in our conversation, I say there is hell for sure. You say no, you don't think so. How close are we to the truth now? Nowhere close are we?
I say there is reincarnation. You say there is no reincarnation. Again, how close are we to the truth? This is an endless cycle. It's nonsense, I'll use your words here. Ignore those aspects because nobody will ever know for sure. If you ask them why, they'll say Buddha said so or somebody said this. We will never know because we don't have the necessary mindset to understand it. That's why I say, as normal people, get back to the basics. Use common sense instead. And practice meditation. That's it. Why bother about some reincarnation as a pigeon or something? ;)
You seem to be "hell bent" (if I may use that word) on correcting Buddhism. Why?
I think I'll add the following which will show why perspective is important.
I am not even a Buddhist, let alone Tibetan Buddhist. I don't concentrate on aspects of hell or heaven or wonderland. Maybe it is true, maybe it is not. I don't even say "Lord" Buddha. I don't care about him.
I care about being practical. About life experience and what we do. Gautama Buddha is almost an anthropologist. Our mind's workings are very important and if we fix that then Samsāra as we know it, will fix itself.

You have answered your question yourself. Organized religions are always a construct to sell oneself to masses. Buddhism sells Nirvana, Hinduism sell Moksha, Islam sells Paradise and so on. But the objective of any religion is evolution of mankind which is embedded in teachings of enlightened ones. You are asking right thing to wrong set of people. People who are not enlightened will generally be hostile. You need to find an enlightened person and till you find one you have no option but to use scriptures. That is the reason people are asking you to read. An enlightened person is a living scripture. He will not quote any scripture. But it is difficult to find one. Those who know it dont show it.
Whenever I praise Buddha I get upvotes. But the moment I write critically about Buddhism I get downvotes without any comments. You should rely on living buddha and if you cannot find one read sermons of dead ones but not interpreted versions by sect or organized religions. It is number game. The heads of sects and organized religions are just bothered about numbers of their followers. Stay clear of sects and religion just focus on direct teachings.


text:
What arises first - feeling of object or visual representation of object?
I'm wondering what do other meditators see when they analyze closely the arising of a visual representation of an object in their mind?
Please do this experiment: go into meditation and think of a visual representation of an object of your choosing. Look carefully how that visual representation of the object arises in your mind. Please describe here what do you see, from the moment there is "nothing" in your mind, to the moment when the visual representation of the object arises in your mind. Please also give an estimate how many hours of meditation have you practiced in your life.
Here's what I see when I do the above experiment:
What I'm seeing is that first, there arises the wish/want/decision/effort (I use different words here, but I'm referring to the same thing). Then, there arises a subtle subtle subtle feeling of the object (no visual representation of the object can be seen yet). Then, the more I wish/want/decide/effort, the stronger is the feeling of the object (no visual representation of the object can be seen yet). Then, when I wish/want/decide/effort even more, an incomplete/dimmed/unclear representation of the object can be seen. Then, the more I wish/want/decide/effort, the more complete is the visual representation of the object in my mind.
In my life I practiced meditation for about 450 hours.
UPDATE:
I know that in Buddhism this rule applies: "it is not appropriate to reveal personal insights" ... the reason I'm asking you to describe your personal insight in the experiment above is to see it first hand why this rule applies: "it is not appropriate to reveal personal insights". I personally don't know any experienced meditators, thus I have nobody to ask this same question and see how personal insights of others differ from mine ... that's why I'm asking here. Hope some experienced meditator will give some description of his personal insight by answering this question.

Is this meditation part of your Buddhist practice or do you practice meditation for other reasons?

I don't see my meditation as "my Buddhist practice". I came up with all my practice by observation. Today I practice meditation because of love and compassion towards other beings. I don't consider myself a Buddhist (nor anything else), but if I had to choose I would choose Buddhism.

In Buddhism, there is [dependent origination][1], which is a description of the process of arising of all phenomena/mindobjects in detail (12 different links). The claim is that you can observe this in all phenomena, not only in a 'visual representation of an object'. From Buddhist point of view it is also important to point out, that this process of arising of an object is completely impersonal. So there is no "I", who is observing, but just the object arising.[1]: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

Thx. When I do the above experiment, "I" also arises with the object. Just the mere act of observing, arises the "I". All of this, the "I" and the object, come from my wish/want/decision/effort. My wish/want/decision/effort come from "not knowing" where the end is, thus searching for the end with wishing/wanting/decision making. Not knowing that wishing/wanting/decision making are impermanent, thus creating seeds for future suffering.

problem is, that words cannot describe real experiences. It is i.e. impossible to describe the taste of an apple to somebody with words. But when you bite the apple, you know its flavour. When you know its flavour, you don't need to ask others what they taste, because you already know it. On the other side, nobody can convince you that the apple has a different flavour, because you tasted it yourself, not just heard someone saying it. It is the same with the dhamma. You can't rely on the words of others, but only on your own experience. (this is a common simile in Buddhism)

Thx. Yes, I agree.

It seems that nobody wants to do the experiment in my question. Why is that so? And where can I find some practitioners who would be willing to do the experiment?

What kind of "object", for example?

The optic nerve first goes to the amygdala where emotion resides and then to a large processing area to the back of the head where the image is formed.
So indeed feeling is first but still this knowledge must be realized for oneself by oneself through meditative attention or else it is just intellectual knowlegde.

I personally think this happens.
Contact arises first "seeing or thinking", followed by apprehension of the Sign (ie "A cup"), apperhension of Characteristics (ie Ugly) and so on with liking/disliking, wanting/aversion etc

It is said in the scriptures that the order is this: contact - feeling - perception - thought formation - consciousness.
Indeed one should find out for oneself that this is true and not believe it without examining.
My suggestion to your experiment would be to vary the object you call to mind to be unpleasent, pleasent since the hardest feeling to detect is the neutral one.

I do not think it is appropriate to answer this at the level of personal experience as it is not appropriate to reveal personal insights so let me give a theoretical answer.
When a object arises in the mind the following happens:

you get conscious about the object to which you experience a reflexive reaction which intens manifests as sensation of pain, pleasure or neutral depending on if the reaction what a positive, negative or neutral reaction. See: consciousness and feeling / sensation
together with the reaction, the sensation that follow and other qualities of the object you build a perception of the object. See: perception

In summary it is consciousness and reactive / reflexive sensation that arises 1st followed by (visual) clarity of the object by filling in the details when you perceive or cognise it.
In addition see: five aggregates

Thx for the answer. Please see my updated question. If you do the experiment that I described in my question, do you have a different personal insight then mine? How much is your personal insight different on a scale from 1 to 10?

Mainly what you should look is if the theory is confined through the practice at an experiential. In this case it seas like it.


text:
What are the differences between meritorious acts and wholesome acts?
A detailed answer with references is highly appreciated!

Do you mean the difference between "Kusala" and "Punna" ?  I'm curious to see the answers too.  Buddha used those two words in many suttas.  They are interchangeable words.

in satipatthana, Buddha said true kusala is satipatthana 4. I have not read all the suttas, but I have yet to see if Buddha used "punna" to describe satipatthana 4.  other than that, kusala and punna are interchangeable as far as i know.  I just want to point out, in contrast, Buddha described 5 hindrances as true "akusala" .  Your question can further branch out to the difference between Akusala and Papa.

Yes it can be branched out to Akusala and papa also. I think punna and kusala are not interchangeable. Roots and targets seem to be different.

thanks Dewmini, i had to double check check my fact.   topic of Kusala and Punna is not as easy as Akusala and Papa (where Buddha often used these terms together in many suttas, example " pāpakā akusalā dhammā" ).  I got the idea that Kusala and punna could be interchangeable from Abhisanda Sutta: Rewards. "..This is the first reward of merit (pali-punna), reward of skillfulness(pali-kusala),.." .  this part of the sutta shows the commonality of Kusala and Punna.  Kusala and Punna could be a good thesis for Master or Ph.D research.

Actually punna, or meritorious acts can be listed. There are ten of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_(Buddhism)#Merit-making

Meritorious act - an act not necessarily devoid of the unwholesome roots. E.g. you give expecting some positive result in the future, hence with some attachment
Wholesome act - and act devoid of unwholesome roots. E.g. giving with the motivation it will create the conditions for liberation.

I believe the former is recent development. E.g. the Abhidhamma talks only about wholesome deeds and does not make distinction about meritorious deeds. Wholesome deeds can be associated with the right view or wrong view. Here the right view is some belief of Karmic retribution. This would be valid not non Buddhist religions like Hinduism or any other religion with has the view that actions will have some Karmic retribution. See: Karma, Karma in Buddhism
Dana Sutta discusses different levels of giving in which different results can be reaped. If you make a distinction between meritorious and wholesome as discussed earlier perhaps the last 1 or 2 forms of giving can be considered wholesome and the rest as meritorious.

When we discuss virtuous living and behaviour according to the Buddha's teaching, two special Pali words are used - kusala and punna. Kusala has come to mean 'karmically wholesome', while punna is taken to mean 'merit'.
Often Buddhists in Sri Lanka use the two words to describe one and the same kind of activity - "meritorious". However it would be good to look at these two words in the context of the Buddha's discourses.
There is a difference in the two words, and have to be taken in the context in which they are used. The Buddha has said, "Accumulate much wholesome actions." He has used the term 'wholesome' in the practice of the Noble eight-fold path, and development of tranquillity and insight.
Merit is the term often used to describe actions that bring about spiritual welfare and contentment. He has discoursed, "Bhikkhus, 'pleasant disposition' is another word for 'merit." That would mean one should engage in meritorious deeds to receive a life of comfort and contentment. He has also said that it is an auspicious event in life to be possessing previously accumulated merits.
There is a view among a few lay people as well as monks today that since merits prolong the process of existence and the round of rebirths, one needs to accumulate only wholesome actions and not merit. One gets into debate about merit and wholesome actions due to non understanding of the reasons for the continuance of the round of rebirths. Round of rebirths occur due to Dependent Origination.
If the continuance of the round of rebirths occurs due to Dependent Origination, the latter must cease for the round of rebirths to cease occurring. The way to make that happen is to follow the Noble Eight-fold Path. To fulfil that process, one needs to association of noble friends, hearing the Doctrine and keep company with righteous people. He would also need a rebirth conducive to fulfil the process of following the Noble Eightfold Path. Now, that is where merit plays its part.
A rebirth in worlds of the Brahmas and Devas becomes a very helpful asset to one who searches for the goal of Nibbana. Such rebirths are the results of merits. So we must understand the true worth of merit. Those who spend the time arguing "We do not need merit but only wholesome deeds" unfortunately may end up getting neither.
Undoubtedly, it would be a wholesome action to have a thorough understanding of Merit and wholesome actions before one would discuss them. Trying to discredit merit can only result in accumulating unwholesome actions. The Buddha has this to say about merit: "If one has enthusiasm to do a meritorious deed, do so over and over again. Develop a desire to do merit. Merit is comfort."
The Buddha's consistently emphatic message is to annihilate desire. However, He exhorts desire for merit because merit is needed to make our lives comfortable and conducive to search the goal of Nibbana. Our birth in this world and all our good achievements are results of accumulated merits.
There are those who may say that in today's world many things need money and therefore even doing merit can be expensive. However that may be, money and merit have no real proportion. Merit is something that does not measure and count with money. Merit is based on a non-aggressive and virtuous mentality.
Merit has its origin in right thinking. It is the right thinking that teaches us the benefit of selfless giving, benefit of merit, that good and bad actions have similar outcomes, there is benefit in taking care of one's parents. To say that one cannot do meritorious actions for want of money would not amount to right thinking.
Observing the five precepts, observing the eight precepts on Poya day, Contemplation of the Buddha, Contemplation of the Dhamma and Contemplation of the Sangha, and meditation on loving kindness do not cost money. In short, we can earn merit even from the dish water we throw away. Thus the talk that merit is costly may be misleading to those who don't have money as well as to those whose wealth is more than they can count.


text:
Why intake of intoxicating substances is not included in 10 unwholesome actions?
Following are the 3 unrighteous bodily conducts out of 10 unwholesome actions described in suttas such as Saleyyaka Sutta.

Killing living beings
Stealing
Sexual misconduct

I would like to know the reason why the intake of intoxicants, liquor and drugs is not listed as one of unwholesome actions.

In a way, the 10 unwholesome actions already take into account the intaking of intoxicants in the sense that intoxicant is a condition for the manifestation of any one of those 10 unwholesome actions. When one is drunk, it could serve as the condition that leads to killing, stealing, raping, etc.. OR it could just cause him to throw up and then pass out. In other words the 10 unwholesome actions are listed because they're all manifested explicit actions while taking intoxicants is a to-be-manifested action..

Saleyyaka Sutta mention 10 without intake of intoxicants
Veludvāreyya Sutta mention 7 without intake of intoxicants
Sigal’ovada Sutta mention 4 without intake of intoxicants (this is mentioned separately though)

Once I heard that in early Indian kings use to take a drink in the evening. The Buddha was careful not to introduce this precept in early day of his teaching until most of the Kings, ministers and tycoons where his disciples. Later when this happened this was introduced. If this was prematurely introduced many who were taking habitual or customary drinks might not have been inclined to listen to the Dhamma. This is just a theory to explain the lack intake of intoxicants in some Suttas some which were early days of the dispensation.

Thanks for your opinion. But I don't agree with your reason. Let's keep digging; there should be a deeper meaning for this.

The Buddha always was mindful of the timing and the audience always. So it should be to do with this. Some period it was not the right time as with the vinaya. Some times it was not needed for the listener in case does not have the vise.

Also Sāgata who was Skilled in the Heat-Element (Tejodhātukulasa) and one of the 80 great disciples also on one occasion drank. It was this occasion that the Buddha forbade drinking for the monks. See: SURĀPĀNA-JĀTAKA

Also the suggestion to provide drinks was by the Chabbaggīyā Bhikkhus as a gift or gratitude for taming a menacing Nāga. So perhaps the Buddha had not preached that even the basic Sila should include refrain from taking intoxicants at least up to this point. Also when offered drinks as Dana, highly accomplished Sāgata partook it.

I think the case of Sarakani Shakya who drank to death but praised as a Sothapanna by the Buddha is the best example ever.

Buddha told Ven Sariputta that he would not answer to any questions or teach anything that might promote heedlessness.  So here is strictly my opinion.  Perhaps there is threshold of consuming alcohol or intoxicants??  For example, if one uses cooking wine to prepare a dish for its aroma, would that consider breaking a precept?  What about fermented rice for desert (yeast+rice+sugar)?  It has slight alcohol in it but not enough to alter mind.  Again, my opinion, there could be a possible threshold of consuming intoxicant but mentioning it would promote heedlessness.  It could possibly be that there is some qualifier in the 5th precept that is best not to mention?  Best not to consume it at all.

The Unwholesome actions produce a karmic seed that will definitely fruit.
For example, even if you killed someone out of self-defense, there would be a negative result.
Even if you got angry towards someone because they are harming themselves, you would produce a negative karmic seed.
That is why these are "unwholesome" fundamentally.
Many things that produce an un-sober state on the other hand only do so after a certain point. There are many medical situations where it is necessary. Many medicines have alcohol as an agent. The same goes for other inebriating drugs. It is of course better to avoid them altogether but there is no diet that is fundamentally unwholesome.
On the other hand, the unwholesome actions are on some fundamental level going to cause some karmic repercussion.

First of all, the Buddha never talks about drugs as such. He talks about alcohol, including a form of alcohol that was used in Ayurvedic medicine as an anesthetic, i.e., a drug, but the Pali suttas do not include any words that can be directly translated as "drugs." Alcohol is frequently absent from lists of prohibited activities, including the famous Pansil, i.e., Five Precepts. There is a fourfold version of pansil called the Four Restraints. As to why this is the case, the answer is that it is because the Buddha did not prohibit alcohol for the first eight years of the sangha. The Buddha only prohibited alcohol when a monk got drunk and passed out, embarassing the sangha. This happened during a famine, when all that the villagers had to offer the monastics was palm wine. Subsequently drinking alcohol was added to the Four Restraints to make the Five Precepts, and the Buddha forbade the ordination of drinkers, but at the same time drinking alcohol is a very minor offence in the Vinaya, requiring confession only.

Do you happen to remember where an earlier version of the five precepts (i.e. the "Four Restraints") is mentioned?

Many places. I did note them in my book, Conversations with the Buddha. Give me a day or two, and I will list the suttas in the Digha Nikaya which reference the fourfold version. Its very common (you'll probably start noticing it now that I've called your attention to it, if you read the Pali Canon at all).

Thank you, it's a very apposite answer to the question. There's a post here referencing  introducing the rule for monks (which implies it wasn't one of the original rules), but I hadn't noticed the same (that the rule was later) for the lay precepts (except that it's counted as the 5th precept).

"The suttas that follow refer to four precepts, excluding alcohol: D 1, 22, 25, 27, 29, 31. However, D 29 seems to be a late sutta, but incorporates the fourfold version of the precepts that exclude alcohol." (Conversations with the Buddha, p. 15, n. 14).

Everybody is intoxicated. Some people to food, some to sex, some to power, some to alcohol. Buddha never said anything about sex, food, alcohol or other intoxicants. Sexual conduct is only defined for monks. Buddha never said anything about householders. Meditation alone is the cure for intoxication of any kind. Please remember Buddha's path is path of intelligence. Any intelligent person will see an intoxicant as bondage and will set himself free of it. There is no need for any Sutta.

What is your reference to what Buddha said or not said?

People who go by book never reach anywhere. Essence of buddha's preaching is important. Buddhas always talk about principles not dos and donts. Buddha being a wise man will not deal with vices but the root cause. Root cause of vices is rooted in your desire. If you are not habituated to an intoxicant whether it is wine or a woman it is not a hindrance. A monk is supposed to lead disciplined life to move towards Nirvana faster but householders are not. Therefore Buddha neither commented on sex life of a householder nor on intoxicant. For all vices there is one cure - meditation.

This is incorrect if we take traditional texts as evidence of what the Buddha said, since, e.g., abstention from intoxicants is one of the five lay precepts, as is abstention from sexual misconduct.

Buddha said what to whom is debatable. If you have a chance to meet a live Buddha you will know the difference. What you are talking about is intoxicants. What i am talking about is addiction. Intake of intoxicant is not wrong addiction  is. I am giving you a perspective which is different than traditional text. Take the fifth percept to mean any addiction. Then whether it is tea, coffee, wine, sex etc all are taken care of. If you are not addicted to any of them it is right otherwise wrong. Use it in your definition of fifth percept and you will see the difference.


text:
Looking for a clear explanation of "interdependent origination" in English (one that doesn't rely a lot of Buddhist terminology)?
I am having difficulty understanding the idea of interdependent origination within the following text. It is from The Essence of Buddhism by Traleg Kyabgon. I am finding this book very useful as a refresher on the basic philosophy of Buddhism, especially because it includes Tibetan Buddhism. However this section, which talks about one of the two main ideas in Buddhism, seems to rely on terminology that gives me the impression of circular reasoning.

"How, then, do things come into being? They come into being because of
  what is called interdependent origination, or pratitya-samutpada—that
  is, due to causes and conditions. This implies that things do not have
  inherent existence, because if they had any kind of essence or
  independent existence there would be no need for the whole idea of
  causality. Nagarjuna says: “The origination of inherent existence from
  causes and conditions is illogical, since if inherent existence
  originated from causes and conditions, all things would thereby become
  contingent. How could there be contingent inherent existence? For
  inherent existence is not contingent; nor is it dependent on another
  being. So the very idea of causality involves the notion that things
  are contingent. There is no being that can exist on its own without
  depending on anything else; no self-sufficient being. Everything is
  interdependent. Everything that exists on both the physical and mental
  plane involves the idea of interdependence, or pratitya-samutpada.”

I would very much appreciate an explanation, in clear English and without reliance on terminology (because it appears to be explaining by self referencing concepts and terms) of this basic idea. My guess is that the author is assuming that I already know something which I do not. References to online sources would be appreciated, if you can explain it yourself that would be terrific, and most of all if you can refer me to a clear, translation of the Buddha's original words about this that would be splendid.
Many thanks.

The Wikipedia entry on dependent origination is pretty good and simple. Similarly there is a good essay called Dependent Arising by Piya Tan.
In simple terms this is as follows:

When the cause is present, the effect arising from the cause is present as well
When the cause arises, the effect arising from the cause arises as well
When the cause is not present, the effect arising from the cause is not present as well
When the cause ceases, the effect arising from the cause ceases as well

The 12 links dependent origination (found in numerous Suttas like (Avijjā) Paccaya Sutta) you fill in specific cases and their resulting effects and how these affects in turn become a cause to create more effects.
The most elaborate of specific cause and effect relationships are found in the Theory of Conditional Relations. This maybe above the head for many.
Another rendering of this is the 4 Noble Truths.

Thank you for your response and your earnest effort in understanding the teachings.     It did not occur to me to look to Wikipedia for help, good catch. I will definitely follow up on that and the other sources that you refer me to. Answering the question in simple terms does not help me yet, because that seems so self-evident.I think I have run into something which is both simple and profound. Lucky me.

In our day to day perception, we see objects as "things-in-themselves" and this is useful to make those practical decisions we all have to make at every moment.
Car (=object) is coming at me -> Threat -> Better get out of the way.
However when we start to look deeper we see that these objects are actually constructs, without independent reality.
It is useful to think of objects as "systems".
A system has components and processes inside of it. The system depends on these processes. The processes inside this system in turn depend on the system as a whole.
Our body is a great example. The liver is a subsystem upon which we (as a system) depend. In turn, the liver depends on the whole system. The Liver would also not have existed without us, nor would we exist without one.
We in turn live in a larger system to which we contribute and in turn we are sustained by the system.
In other words: An object only arises when the right conditions are present.
That car has no independent reality, but I must admit I'll still get out of the way.

Thank you for your response. It resonates with a meditation that I started doing, impromptu, and have returned to. It typically began, "Focused attention shifts to the body. It is incorrect to say that 'I am this body,' or 'This is my body.' It is more correct to say 'There is a body, which contains hands, eyes, etc.' This having been witnessed, the body drops away from awareness and attention turns to emotions." ... (concrete mind, abstract mind, etc.) I had seen "my self" as a thing-in-itself, which has definite utility in this realm, but it is not correct and it is limited.

I think it's similar to the theory of cause-and-effect: if A causes B, then the origination of B depends on A.
It may be a little vaguer than cause-and-effect (and for that reason I think it may be more useful or more true than a simplistic view of cause and effect): sometimes I find it difficult to answer, "which is the cause and which is the effect?" For example, is fire caused by heat, or is heat caused by fire? IMO "inter-dependent" avoids committing itself to a specific distinction between cause and effect, and lets you say that "the origination of fire depends on heat" as well as "the origination of heat depends on fire". Heat and fire can be said to "co-arise" i.e. they arise or occur together, or depend on each other.
A simple example might be, as Suminda mentioned, in the four noble truths: the second noble truth says that the origination of suffering is craving, which means that suffering has craving as its condition (the existence of suffering implies the existence of craving, or perhaps they co-arise). The third and fourth noble truths state the converse of that relation, i.e. cessation of craving and of suffering.
I think it's meant to be a useful theory: for example fire depends on fuel, so you can extinguish fire by removing it from its fuel. Understanding the cause[s] of existence (e.g. of suffering or of non-suffering) is a kind of science.
I think it also relates to ideas of "impermanence" and of "emptiness" and "non-self". A theory of self might say that there's a "me" that's not only permanent but also independent of other things (e.g. if I had an eternal soul then that soul might presumably be independent of impermanent or transient things). But the theory of dependent origination might disagree and say that the body depends on various things (birth, food, etc.) and that various aspects of the mind depend on things (things, senses, contact between things and senses, consciousness of that contact), and that things which arise dependent of some condition do the opposite of arising (i.e. they cease) when those conditions are no longer applicable, hence "all put-together things are subject to decay".

Thank you, this reminded me that my focus is practical. Yesterday I went back to Houston Smith's book, "A concise introduction to Buddhism." He has remarkable clarity. He states, "Human actions vectored by ignorant desire tend to yield only more of the same. If the trend is unchecked, the wheel of dependent arising only tightens our bondage. Conversely, however, actions vectored by the intention to win spiritual freedom yield their kin. If this trend is cultivated, the wheel of dependent arising starts turning in the other direction, uncoiling our bonds. This is the life of awakening."

Just a quick answer to try and clarify the terminology:

if X originated from conditions, it is not / does not have inherent existence; it's dependent [on the conditions that originated it]
if X has inherent existence (meaning: it exists independently), then it did not become (i.e. "it wasn't born") due to some conditions; it does not depend on any condition.

So...

“The origination of inherent existence from causes and conditions is illogical

That is, something cannot be independent and at the same time arise  because of (be dependent on) conditions -- it's a contradiction, a fallacy. Either it s (1) or (2).

since if inherent existence originated from causes and conditions, all things would thereby become contingent.

In other words, if (a) that which is conditioned is conditioned, and (b) that which is not conditioned is also conditioned, than all things would be conditioned.

How could there be contingent inherent existence? For inherent existence is not contingent; nor is it dependent on another being.

In other words: this can't be. So inherent existence is not dependent on anything.
Thus, apart from the vocabulary, that Nagarjuna quote is just a logical analysis with the intent to show that something independent is, indeed, independent from everything.

Thank you for your response. Indeed the Buddha was more logical than anyone of whom I have heard. Unfortunately an if – then – else understanding is beyond me at this time. And it is the terminology and jargon which is creating difficulties. It would be very helpful for me to have a much more simple, direct explanation if you have it.

I too had a problem with this concept when I first began my studies. It was helpful to substitute "fixed" for "inherent" (after consulting the dictionary).  If phenomena are fixed, then there can be no cause or condition that can change any object, concept, or emotion. An examination of life tells us this is not true. Nothing is independent of the influence of something else.  Everything is dependent upon a cause that originates an effect.

For the Buddha, the term paticcasamuppada is only used for the causality (iddapaccayata) that leads to the origination of suffering. The causality of material things, for example, is called iddapaccayata rather than paticcasamuppada. All iddapaccayata (causality) is not paticcasamuppada. However, paticcasamuppada is a subset of iddapaccayata.
The Buddha was primarily concerned with how suffering arises & ends so the Buddha was primarily concerned with paticcasamuppada.
Paticcasamuppada is about how ignorance of the impermanence & selflessness of phenomena results in the mind craving for & clinging to impermanent phenomena as "self" & "belonging to self". When impermanence occurs to those objects of clinging, "aging-&-death" occurs, resulting in suffering.
In short, paticcasamuppada simply explains how, due to ignorance & craving, the mind suffers over change & loss.
The Nakulapita Sutta provides an easy to understand example of how the last four conditions of paticcasamuppada result in suffering (sorrow).


text:
Did Buddha forbid paying respect to deities of contemporary traditions?
Buddhism shares many deities with Brahmanism(Hinduism) and Jainism for example, Indra, Yama, etc. (Though the story associated with them might differ between the traditions, the central persona is the same).
There are also many other deities which Brahmanism and Jainism do not share with Buddhism. Did Buddha forbid paying respects to such deities?

Buddhism shares many deities with Brahmanism(Hinduism) and Jainism for example, Indra, Yama, etc. (Though the story associated with them might differ between the traditions, the central persona is the same).

Buddhism does acknowledge existence of deities but in a different context than Brahmanism / Hinduism. See: God in Buddhism, Deva

There are also many other deities which Brahmanism and Jainism do not share with Buddhism. Did Buddha forbid paying respects to such deities?

There is not forbidding of paying respect to deities or Devas. This can be used as a subject of meditation.

Thanks for the answer. Yes I agree the context is different but the persona & core ideal are the same. As I had given example of Yama & Indra - they have different contexts but same core character.


text:
The Law of One Form
In the Burton Watson translation of the Lotus Sutra, on page 136-7 there is mentioning of "The law of one form" Here is an exerpt of where this is mentioned by Shakyamuni:

"The thus come one knows that this is the law of one form, one flavor, namely, the form of emancipation, the form of ultimate nirvana, of constant tranquility and extinction, which in the end finds its destination in emptiness. The Buddha understands all this."

Is there another name for the law of one form, because when I looked it up on the internet, -but perhaps my searching skills aren't very good- I couldn't find much anything about it and I would like to learn more.

There is an example or a restatement (or an original statement) of that here, in the Uposatha Sutta,

[6] And furthermore, just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma & Vinaya has a single taste: that of release...

Bikkhu Bodhi quotes that passage in a couple of his essays, e.g. The Taste of Freedom and The Living Message of the Dhammapada.

There are a few passages where the Buddha is quoted as saying,

Both formerly and now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress

... which I think is similar.

You may be reading too much into the translation. You're reading "the law of one form" and think that sounds like "the law of gravity" or "the law of Newton", etc. (i.e. a specific named law).
But "law" in that context is presumably "Dhamma" or "Dharma", so "the law" is "the Dhamma".
And "the law of one form" might be translated as "the Dhamma which has one form" -- so I suppose it's talking about the doctrine of nirvana -- that's why you couldn't find it on the internet, because "the law of one form" isn't a standard phrase/name for the concept.
Part of the reason why "the law of one form" is not a very standard concept or phrase might be as follows. When you consider "the law of gravity" or "the law of thermodynamics" then what's being described is "gravity" or "thermodynamics". But the phrase "the law of one form" isn't a description of "one form", rather it's a description of "the law" or of "Dhamma". It's not saying there's something important to know about "the one form", instead it's saying that there's something important to know about the Dhamma ... and the important thing to know is that the Dhamma has one form (or perhaps another sutta might say, "one direction") i.e. it tends towards nirvana, its purport is the cessation of stress.

Just want to echo ChrisW's point with an alternative translation (ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20150521183528/http://www.bdkamerica.org/digital/dBET_T0262_LotusSutra_2007.pdf ): "...The Tathāgata teaches the Dharma of one aspect and character; that is to say, the character of liberation, dispassion, and cessation which ultimately
leads to omniscience" (page 96)


text:
Is observing the start-middle-end of breath a correct practice in Anapanasati meditation?
I was reading through Patisambhidamagga, KN. From page 164, it describes about 'Eighteen kinds of knowledge of imperfections' related to Anapanasati(Mahavagga->Anapanasatikatha).
Following is the except:

1)When he goes in with mindfulness after the beginning, middle and end of the in-breath, his cognizance being distracted internally, both his body and his cognizance are disquieted, perturbed and excited.
2)When he goes out with mindfulness after the beginning, middle and end of the out-breath, his cognizance being distracted internally, both his body and his cognizance are disquieted, perturbed and excited.
3)With such behavior of craving as hope for, and attachment to, in-breath both his body and his cognizance are disquieted, perturbed and excited.
4)With such behavior of craving as hope for, and attachment to, out-breath both his body and his cognizance are disquieted, perturbed and excited.
5)Owing to longing for out-breath in him when he is fatigued by [too long or too short] in-breath is body..
....

Does anybody have a reference to pali canon(not commentary) where it supports the observation of start-middle-end of breath?

I read in a book by Nyanaponika, that obvserving the start and end is good for insight into impermanence, while in samatha you sort of go with the "flow" of the breath.

He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body (of breath)",
He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body (of breath)",
...
Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, understands that he is making
  a long turn, or in making a short turn, understands that he is making a short turn, so, too, a monk
...
He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body (of breath)",
He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body (of breath)",

Source: Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta
Experiencing the whole breath is sometimes interpreted as being aware of the start-middle-end of the breath. Also the skilled tuner passage seems to imply such as cited by some in support of this interpretation.
See: How is the Pali Phase "Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati..." Interpreted as per Different Linage?

In Pali, the word 'sabba kaya" means "all bodies". The Anapanasati Sutta states the "breathing is a body among bodies". These bodies (kaya) are the breath kaya, rupa kaya (physical body) and nama kaya (mental body). The Buddha was not interested in the start, middle & end of the breath. The Buddha was interested in how the mind can calm the breathing, which calms the body. Or, in terms of suffering, how the state of mind disturbs the breathing which disturbs the body. The Buddha was interested in suffering & it cessation. What as been explained is the true meaning of stage 3 of anapanasati.
Refer to Buddhadasa book: Anapanasati: Unveiling the Secrets of Life.