user254: The word "blameless" is often used in suttas: https://www.google.com/search?q=blameless%20site%3Aaccesstoinsight.org
AN 4.62 suggests it's highly good:

Seeing clearly — the wise one —
he knows both sides:
that these are not worth one sixteenth-sixteenth
of the bliss of blamelessness.


Is there doctrine about it, or do people just already know and agree on what it means?
Is it given as an ideal for monks and for lay-people?
What is its opposite -- i.e. "blame" -- who does the blaming?
Is it to do with self-reproach? Or with blaming other people, ...?
Is it identical to "absence of remorse", which AN 11.1 explains is the purpose of skillful virtue?
What about "irresponsible" -- behaving badly, not accepting blame, even blaming others instead?
Does someone know correctly whether and when their life is blameless, or might they be self-deluded?
What about the Lokavipatti Sutta AN 8.6 -- does that say that "desirable things" (e.g. "blamelessness" in this context) shouldn't charm the mind, and its opposite shouldn't be resisted? Is blame and blamelessness just another of the worldly winds?


user13709: The definition of "blameless" in the suttas is recursive--the definition uses "blameless" to describe "blameless".

AN4.135:5.1: And how is a person blameless?
AN4.135:5.2: It’s when a person does things by way of body, speech, and mind that are blameless.

To understand the definition, we have to consider the context. Blame is contextual. It is contextual because the context for blamelessness is the assembly. Living together in harmony requires blamelessness.

AN3.95:4.2: An assembly where the mendicants live in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling, blending like milk and water, and regarding each other with kindly eyes. This is called a harmonious assembly.

Assemblies are bound together by commonly held rules. Monastics will have the Vinaya. Yet even laity has rules. Even organized crime has rules. Those who break the rules in their society with body, speech or mind are not blameless.
Some rules assume the conceit, "I am". Importantly, Buddhist rules do not. For example, take the first three rules of MN8:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’
MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’
...

Because Mara exploits loopholes with a passion, blamelessness requires utter vigilance. It also requires abandoning the conceit, "I am".

DN34:1.2.11: What one thing should be given up?
DN34:1.2.12: The conceit ‘I am’.


SN45.3:2.2: Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

Without blamelessness, how could there be a spiritual life?

user23656: Most importand to relay on Samma-mana, right conceit, going after blameless. Without the notion of feeling rightly blameless, the path wouldn't develop and faultlessness is prerequisite for pathdevelopment Jhanas. Sure it's problematical to be accepted by on-house-holder and stand-maintainer as there way requires dusty blameful ways of which they are not willing to give up. In that way they start to develop a virtue out of incapacity, try to polish there faults with 1000 useless words of wrong conceit, maintaining there being.
By seeing blameworthy as blameless and viciversa, step by step they increase their bond downwardly, hoping that rebirth will not come along for those denying cause and effect anyway.
Most blameworthy those followers of the naked... most blameworthy their jeloose ways. Stingy in all regards incapable for Jhanas, Paths and fruits, burning off by defending decaying stand, house.

user23339: 
"We want a happiness that’s blameless, i.e., one that doesn’t harm anybody."


~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Brahmaviharas on the Path" https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Published/Meditations8/151122_Brahmaviharas_on_the_Path.pdf


user471: AN 4.62 defines the happiness of debtlessness and the happiness of blamelessness, but says that the happiness of blamelessness is worth a lot more than the happiness of debtlessness.

And what is the happiness of blamelessness? It’s when a noble disciple
has blameless conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. When he
reflects on this, he’s filled with pleasure and happiness. This is
called ‘the happiness of blamelessness’. ......
Seeing clearly, a clever person knows both kinds of happiness: the
other kind is not worth a sixteenth part of the happiness of
blamelessness.”
AN 4.62

The following Dhammapada verses also talk about blamelessness.

If knowledgeable people praise him, having observed him day after day
to be blameless in conduct, intelligent, endowed with discernment &
virtue: like an ingot of gold — who's fit to find fault with him? Even
devas praise him. Even by Brahmas he's praised.
Dhp 229 - 230

Blameless in conduct by way of body, speech and mind is related to virtue, and therefore also freedom from remorse.
Remorse is of course, what one feels, when one is blamed for his or her conduct. When one is blameless, one is remorseless. This leads to jhana according to the sutta below, and eventually to liberation. And that's how blameless conduct is related to the Dhamma.
Remorse can be considered self-blame.

"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."
"Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward."
(this goes on, till)
"Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.
AN 11.1

Having blameless conduct is also one of the four factors of stream entry.

And a noble disciple’s ethical conduct is loved by the noble ones,
unbroken, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred, liberating, praised by
sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion.
These are the four factors of stream-entry that they have.
AN 10.92


254: <p>The word &quot;blameless&quot; is often used in suttas: <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=blameless%20site%3Aaccesstoinsight.org" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.google.com/search?q=blameless%20site%3Aaccesstoinsight.org</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.062.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 4.62</a> suggests it's highly good:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Seeing clearly — the wise one —<br />
he knows both sides:<br />
that these are not worth one sixteenth-sixteenth<br />
of the bliss of blamelessness.</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Is there doctrine about it, or do people just already know and agree on what it means?</li>
<li>Is it given as an ideal for monks and for lay-people?</li>
<li>What is its opposite -- i.e. &quot;blame&quot; -- who does the blaming?</li>
<li>Is it to do with self-reproach? Or with blaming other people, ...?</li>
<li>Is it identical to &quot;absence of remorse&quot;, which <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 11.1</a> explains is the purpose of skillful virtue?</li>
<li>What about &quot;irresponsible&quot; -- behaving badly, not accepting blame, even blaming others instead?</li>
<li>Does someone know correctly whether and when their life is blameless, or might they be self-deluded?</li>
<li>What about the Lokavipatti Sutta <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 8.6</a> -- does that say that &quot;desirable things&quot; (e.g. &quot;blamelessness&quot; in this context) shouldn't charm the mind, and its opposite shouldn't be resisted? Is blame and blamelessness just another of the worldly winds?</li>
</ul>
 13709: <p>The definition of &quot;blameless&quot; in the suttas is recursive--the definition uses &quot;blameless&quot; to describe &quot;blameless&quot;.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/an4.135/en/sujato#an4.135:5.1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN4.135:5.1</a>: And how is a person blameless?<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an4.135/en/sujato#an4.135:5.2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN4.135:5.2</a>: It’s when a person does things by way of body, speech, and mind that are blameless.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To understand the definition, we have to consider the context. Blame is contextual. It is contextual because the context for blamelessness is the assembly. Living together in harmony requires blamelessness.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/an3.95/en/sujato#an3.95:4.2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN3.95:4.2</a>: An assembly where the mendicants live in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling, blending like milk and water, and regarding each other with kindly eyes. This is called a harmonious assembly.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Assemblies are bound together by commonly held rules. Monastics will have the Vinaya. Yet even laity has rules. Even organized crime has rules. Those who break the rules in their society with body, speech or mind are not blameless.</p>
<p>Some rules assume the conceit, &quot;I am&quot;. Importantly, Buddhist rules do not. For example, take the first three rules of MN8:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn8/en/sujato#mn8:12.2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN8:12.2</a>: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn8/en/sujato#mn8:12.3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN8:12.3</a>: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn8/en/sujato#mn8:12.4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN8:12.4</a>: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’<br />
...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Because Mara exploits loopholes with a passion, blamelessness requires utter vigilance. It also requires abandoning the conceit, &quot;I am&quot;.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn34/en/sujato#dn34:1.2.11" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN34:1.2.11</a>: What one thing should be given up?<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn34/en/sujato#dn34:1.2.12" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN34:1.2.12</a>: The conceit ‘I am’.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn45.3/en/sujato#sn45.3:2.2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN45.3:2.2</a>: Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Without blamelessness, how could there be a spiritual life?</p>
 23656: <p>Most importand to relay on Samma-mana, right conceit, going after blameless. Without the notion of feeling rightly blameless, the path wouldn't develop and faultlessness is prerequisite for pathdevelopment Jhanas. Sure it's problematical to be accepted by on-house-holder and stand-maintainer as there way requires dusty blameful ways of which they are not willing to give up. In that way they start to develop a virtue out of incapacity, try to polish there faults with 1000 useless words of wrong conceit, maintaining there being.</p>
<p>By seeing blameworthy as blameless and viciversa, step by step they increase their bond downwardly, hoping that rebirth will not come along for those denying cause and effect anyway.</p>
<p>Most blameworthy those followers of the naked... most blameworthy their jeloose ways. Stingy in all regards incapable for Jhanas, Paths and fruits, burning off by defending decaying stand, house.</p>
 23339: <blockquote>
<p>&quot;We want a happiness that’s blameless, i.e., one that doesn’t harm anybody.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu &quot;Brahmaviharas on the Path&quot; <a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Published/Meditations8/151122_Brahmaviharas_on_the_Path.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Published/Meditations8/151122_Brahmaviharas_on_the_Path.pdf</a></p>
</blockquote>
 471: <p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/an4.62/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 4.62</a> defines the happiness of debtlessness and the happiness of blamelessness, but says that the happiness of blamelessness is worth a lot more than the happiness of debtlessness.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And what is the happiness of blamelessness? It’s when a noble disciple
has <strong>blameless conduct by way of body, speech, and mind</strong>. When he
reflects on this, he’s filled with pleasure and happiness. This is
called ‘the happiness of blamelessness’. ......</p>
<p>Seeing clearly, a clever person knows both kinds of happiness: the
other kind is not worth a sixteenth part of the happiness of
blamelessness.”<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an4.62/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 4.62</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The following Dhammapada verses also talk about blamelessness.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If knowledgeable people praise him, having observed him day after day
to be <strong>blameless in conduct</strong>, intelligent, endowed with discernment &amp;
virtue: like an ingot of gold — who's fit to find fault with him? Even
devas praise him. Even by Brahmas he's praised.<br />
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.17.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhp 229 - 230</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Blameless in conduct by way of body, speech and mind is related to virtue, and therefore also freedom from remorse.</p>
<p><strong>Remorse is of course, what one feels, when one is blamed for his or her conduct. When one is blameless, one is remorseless.</strong> This leads to jhana according to the sutta below, and eventually to liberation. And that's how blameless conduct is related to the Dhamma.</p>
<p>Remorse can be considered self-blame.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
and freedom from remorse as their reward.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward.&quot;</p>
<p><em>(this goes on, till)</em></p>
<p>&quot;Dispassion has knowledge &amp; vision of release as its purpose, knowledge &amp; vision of release as its reward.<br />
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 11.1</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Having blameless conduct is also one of the four factors of stream entry.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And a noble disciple’s ethical conduct is loved by the noble ones,
unbroken, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred, liberating, praised by
sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion.
These are the four factors of stream-entry that they have.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an10.92/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 10.92</a></p>
</blockquote>
