user157: In the Talaputta Sutra, the Buddha says that actors will either be reborn as an animal or go to hell.

When an actor on the stage, [he thinks that] after death, he is reborn
in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now,
there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you:
either hell or the animal womb.

Why does the Buddha have such a dim view of actors? I can imagine all kinds of professions that would be less ethical than acting. Was acting a very different sort of profession in India 2500 years ago? Would the same kind of fate be shared with actors today? Are actors frowned upon in modern day Buddhist countries?
The motivation for this question is that I am due to give a talk on right livelihood at a local Buddhist centre. The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately, there was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really justify this harsh opinion, so I just muttered an apology and moved on.
Many thanks for any/all responses.

user-1: Firstly, i have to say, i do not know the passage of the text. So my help may be limited or in fact unless!
But, here goes. When the Buddha was referring to an "actor" is it possible that He was referring to a person who lives a deluded life of ignorance, resulting in extreme manifestations of imagination, thus the "actor" is created (but not a real film or stage actor, as a job). This would make sense as, the Buddha went on to say that there are only two destinations for such a mind. Which is true, ignorance at it's highest level would result in poor choices and actions in this life and the next. And the reference to the " stage" well, that could be Earth or existence. 
Again, not sure i have been of any help, but this is my view with such little knowledge of the text.
Metta.  

user151: More like the Buddha had a dim view of people with wrong view. Being an actor doesn't always mean the actor is going to have wrong view about devas laughing at the actor. The Buddha doesn't specify how much wrong view leads to lower realms so we have to take this in context. The Buddha's words are tailored for individual audiences and he says things in a way these individuals can understand. This is a reason there seems to be contradictions galore in the Buddha's teaching and another reason there seems to be contradictions is because ultimate and conceptual teachings seem to clash at first like, "there is a self and there is not a self to be found". That only seems contradicting if we don't understand the Buddha is talking about two ways to experience reality.

user10100: An actor is a micchā-vācā of micchā-ājīva in 8-mijjhā-magga, akusala-kammapatha-offense career that buddha said "reborn in hell", because it is 7th of 10 akusala kammapatha, samphappalāla-akusalakammapatha. And that mijjhā-ājīva is wrong livelihood in vanijjasutta (english translation).
Actor/singer career is direct hindrance career for the meditations, because 8 fold path require right speech and right action of right career first as adhi-sīla (observe-practice that is an important base of meditation-practice, higher level practice).

user11225: Buddha is aware person. He is careful about his actions and it's effects on others. Buddha understands that existence treats you according to what you are. You become what you do. Whether it is subtle action like thinking or gross action, you become what you do. You are what you do. Existence treats you according to what you are. Buddha did not just mean actors, he also meant those who arouse passions in others whether they are politicians, priests, actors or anyone. Hence Buddha said that blessed is the one word that brings peace...... According to Buddha, because actors arouse passions in people and push them deeper in to ignorance, Buddha understood what actors are and what existence will do with them. Hence he said that actors will go to hell of laughter not the heaven.

user7611: Acting leads towards hell (or lower destinations), it is one of those things perceived to be harmless but actually causes harm.
But it's not true that all actors would go to hell just that acting itself leads towards hell.
In fact believing "all people who do certain things go to hell" is a wrong view that leads towards hell according to The Buddha:

'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who
  steal... All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell
  lies are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.'
  There are lies that I have told. I, too, am destined for a state of
  deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that view. If he
  doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state of mind,
  doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be carried off, he
  would thus be placed in hell. (Sankha Sutta, SN 42.8)

The Buddha also explains in other suttas the complexities of kamma that it's not true that all people who do evil go to hell or that all people who do good go to heaven, some people who do evil still go to heaven and others that do good go to hell.

"Now there is the person who has killed living beings here... has had
  wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.But (perhaps)
  the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the
  good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right
  view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death."
  (Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta, MN 136)

What happens to a person after death relies on much more than just one thing or one deed, but also earlier kamma, later kamma, and the view at the time of death, which is why sometimes good people go to hell and evil people go to heaven.
The effects of kamma however will always be felt in some form either now or in some existence

"...he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next
  rebirth, or in some subsequent existence" (Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta,
  MN 136)

The Buddha also explains how an evil deed can take one individual to hell but for another individual gets experienced here and now and barely appears for a moment, depending how developed the individual is in body, virtue, mind, and discernment:

"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
  to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
  in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
  mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
  with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual
  takes him to hell.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort
  of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
  barely appears for a moment." (Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99)

Since everyone has intentionally or unintentionally done evil deeds, had wrong views, etc...either now or in the past they should try to become developed in body, mind, virtue, discernment, and large-hearted.
So will "all actors go to hell?" the answer is no.
But will "most actors go to hell?" I'm not sure, The Buddha seems to indicate that most people in general go to the three lower destinations after death (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts).

Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of
  his fingernail, said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Which is
  greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my
  fingernail, or the great earth?"
"The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the
  Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to
  nothing. It doesn't even count. It's no comparison. It's not even a
  fraction, this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with
  the tip of his fingernail, when compared with the great earth.
"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from
  the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
  beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in
  hell... in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.
... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the human realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings
  who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell... in
  the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts." (Pansu Sutta, SN 56.102)

So most people in general go towards the three lower destinations (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts) after death including actors and non-actors...very few go to the more pleasant destinations (humans, devas (heavenly world)).

user111: 
Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.

I think this line is also important, apart from the answer. There's a reason why the Buddha refused to answer even for the second time. Because the answer to this question could potentially turn certain people away from the Dhamma. But Talaputta was wise and matured enough to figure it out. 
To understand this, you have to analyse the mind states of an actor. An actor is a person who glorifies and savors emotions like anger, rage, lust, craving etc. So if a person dies with such a mindstate, his/her destination cannot be a good one. The following passage clearly explains it.

Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound
  by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things
  inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a
  festival.... Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter.

Also, believing that such a profession would lead one to a happy destination makes it worse as false view comes into play as well. But this does not mean that all actors are hellbound. It depends on what Kamma comes forward to bear fruit at the time of death. 
To take an example, an actor getting angry and pretending to kill someone on stage usually does not involve mind states corrupted enough to kill a man for real. So the Kamma he accumulates by acting the scene is much less than someone doing it in real life.

user3551: Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.
I think the Buddha was referring to People with Wrong View. Which in this particular  story happened to be an actor.But could be anybody from different kind of professions. On the other hand when you come to think of it this profession requires someone to intentionally sum up anger,hatred,passion to get into "character" where you may be lost in it,or become it for it to be believable.So it might have some detriments.Or vice versa actors may take up roles of playing a holy man or a noble individual which may have some benefit.

user471: The Buddha quote from the sutta says that anyone with some passion, aversion or delusion, reinforces it by watching the actor's performance. The actor too is intoxicated with emotions due to getting into character to play the role. And by acting out the role on stage, the actor has the intention of getting the audience to experience the same emotions. This intention is karma.
So, this is a question about Right Livelihood. The butcher had the intention and actions to take the life of the animals he slaughtered. And in this case, the actor had the intention and actions to reinforce emotions in the audience that are filled with passion, aversion or delusion. So, it stands to reason that such an acting career is not following Right Livelihood. This surprises me too, but it makes sense.
However, if the acting role results in reinforcement of thoughts and emotions that are conducive to the dhamma, then that can't be wrong in any way, can it?

The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately there
  was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really
  justify this harsh opinion so I just muttered an apology and moved on.

Exactly! For the very same reason, the Buddha said "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that" and refused to answer the question the first time. An actor shouldn't be put off or judged as being a bad person in public. This will take them away from the dhamma. After all, acting by itself is not bad. It's about intentions.

157: <p>In the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Talaputta Sutra</a>, the Buddha says that actors will either be reborn as an animal or go to hell.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When an actor on the stage, [he thinks that] after death, he is reborn
in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now,
there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you:
either hell or the animal womb.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why does the Buddha have such a dim view of actors? I can imagine all kinds of professions that would be less ethical than acting. Was acting a very different sort of profession in India 2500 years ago? Would the same kind of fate be shared with actors today? Are actors frowned upon in modern day Buddhist countries?</p>
<p>The motivation for this question is that I am due to give a talk on right livelihood at a local Buddhist centre. The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately, there was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really justify this harsh opinion, so I just muttered an apology and moved on.</p>
<p>Many thanks for any/all responses.</p>
 -1: <p>Firstly, i have to say, i do not know the passage of the text. So my help may be limited or in fact unless!</p>

<p>But, here goes. When the Buddha was referring to an "actor" is it possible that He was referring to a person who lives a deluded life of ignorance, resulting in extreme manifestations of imagination, thus the "actor" is created (but not a real film or stage actor, as a job). This would make sense as, the Buddha went on to say that there are only two destinations for such a mind. Which is true, ignorance at it's highest level would result in poor choices and actions in this life and the next. And the reference to the " stage" well, that could be Earth or existence. </p>

<p>Again, not sure i have been of any help, but this is my view with such little knowledge of the text.</p>

<p>Metta.  </p>
 151: <p>More like the Buddha had a dim view of people with wrong view. Being an actor doesn't always mean the actor is going to have wrong view about devas laughing at the actor. The Buddha doesn't specify how much wrong view leads to lower realms so we have to take this in context. The Buddha's words are tailored for individual audiences and he says things in a way these individuals can understand. This is a reason there seems to be contradictions galore in the Buddha's teaching and another reason there seems to be contradictions is because ultimate and conceptual teachings seem to clash at first like, "there is a self and there is not a self to be found". That only seems contradicting if we don't understand the Buddha is talking about two ways to experience reality.</p>
 10100: <p>An actor is a micchā-vācā of micchā-ājīva in 8-mijjhā-magga, akusala-kammapatha-offense career that buddha said <strong><a href="http://tipitaka.de/roman/tipitaka%20(mula)/suttapitaka/samyuttanikaya/mahavaggapali/11.%20sotapattisamyuttam.html#para1022" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"reborn in hell"</a></strong>, because it is 7th of 10 akusala kammapatha, <strong>samphappalāla-akusalakammapatha</strong>. And that mijjhā-ājīva is wrong livelihood in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">vanijjasutta (english translation)</a>.</p>

<p>Actor/singer career is direct hindrance career for the meditations, because <strong>8 fold path require right speech and right action <em>of right career</em></strong> first as adhi-sīla (observe-practice that is an important base of meditation-practice, higher level practice).</p>
 11225: <p>Buddha is aware person. He is careful about his actions and it's effects on others. Buddha understands that existence treats you according to what you are. You become what you do. Whether it is subtle action like thinking or gross action, you become what you do. You are what you do. Existence treats you according to what you are. Buddha did not just mean actors, he also meant those who arouse passions in others whether they are politicians, priests, actors or anyone. Hence Buddha said that blessed is the one word that brings peace...... According to Buddha, because actors arouse passions in people and push them deeper in to ignorance, Buddha understood what actors are and what existence will do with them. Hence he said that actors will go to hell of laughter not the heaven.</p>
 7611: <p>Acting leads towards hell (or lower destinations), it is one of those things perceived to be harmless but actually causes harm.</p>

<p>But it's not true that all actors would go to hell just that acting itself leads towards hell.</p>

<p>In fact believing "all people who do certain things go to hell" is a wrong view that leads towards hell according to The Buddha:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who
  steal... All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell
  lies are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.'
  There are lies that I have told. I, too, am destined for a state of
  deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that view. If he
  doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state of mind,
  doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be carried off, he
  would thus be placed in hell. (Sankha Sutta, SN 42.8)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Buddha also explains in other suttas the complexities of kamma that it's not true that all people who do evil go to hell or that all people who do good go to heaven, some people who do evil still go to heaven and others that do good go to hell.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Now there is the person who has killed living beings here... has had
  wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.But (perhaps)
  the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the
  good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right
  view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death."
  (Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta, MN 136)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What happens to a person after death relies on much more than just one thing or one deed, but also earlier kamma, later kamma, and the view at the time of death, which is why sometimes good people go to hell and evil people go to heaven.</p>

<p>The effects of kamma however will always be felt in some form either now or in some existence</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"...he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next
  rebirth, or in some subsequent existence" (Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta,
  MN 136)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Buddha also explains how an evil deed can take one individual to hell but for another individual gets experienced here and now and barely appears for a moment, depending how developed the individual is in body, virtue, mind, and discernment:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
  to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
  in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
  mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
  with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual
  takes him to hell.</p>
  
  <p>"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here &amp; now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort
  of individual is experienced in the here &amp; now, and for the most part
  barely appears for a moment." (Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Since everyone has intentionally or unintentionally done evil deeds, had wrong views, etc...either now or in the past they should try to become developed in body, mind, virtue, discernment, and large-hearted.</p>

<p>So will "all actors go to hell?" the answer is no.
But will "most actors go to hell?" I'm not sure, The Buddha seems to indicate that most people in general go to the three lower destinations after death (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of
  his fingernail, said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Which is
  greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my
  fingernail, or the great earth?"</p>
  
  <p>"The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the
  Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to
  nothing. It doesn't even count. It's no comparison. It's not even a
  fraction, this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with
  the tip of his fingernail, when compared with the great earth.</p>
  
  <p>"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from
  the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
  beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in
  hell... in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.</p>
  
  <p>... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the human realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings
  who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell... in
  the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts." (Pansu Sutta, SN 56.102)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So most people in general go towards the three lower destinations (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts) after death including actors and non-actors...very few go to the more pleasant destinations (humans, devas (heavenly world)).</p>
 111: <blockquote>
  <p>Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think this line is also important, apart from the answer. There's a reason why the Buddha refused to answer even for the second time. Because the answer to this question could potentially turn certain people away from the Dhamma. But Talaputta was wise and matured enough to figure it out. </p>

<p>To understand this, you have to analyse the mind states of an actor. An actor is a person who glorifies and savors emotions like anger, rage, lust, craving etc. So if a person dies with such a mindstate, his/her destination cannot be a good one. The following passage clearly explains it.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound
  by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things
  inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a
  festival.... Thus the actor — himself intoxicated &amp; heedless, having made others intoxicated &amp; heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also, believing that such a profession would lead one to a happy destination makes it worse as false view comes into play as well. But this does not mean that all actors are hellbound. It depends on what Kamma comes forward to bear fruit at the time of death. </p>

<p>To take an example, an actor getting angry and pretending to kill someone on stage usually does not involve mind states corrupted enough to kill a man for real. So the Kamma he accumulates by acting the scene is much less than someone doing it in real life.</p>
 3551: <p><strong>Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.</strong></p>

<p>I think the Buddha was referring to <strong>People with Wrong View</strong>. Which in this particular  story happened to be an actor.But could be anybody from different kind of professions. On the other hand when you come to think of it this profession requires someone to <strong>intentionally</strong> sum up anger,hatred,passion to get into "character" where you may be lost in it,or become it for it to be believable.So it might have some detriments.Or vice versa actors may take up roles of playing a holy man or a noble individual which may have some benefit.</p>
 471: <p>The Buddha quote from <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.002.than.html" rel="noreferrer">the sutta</a> says that anyone with some passion, aversion or delusion, reinforces it by watching the actor's performance. The actor too is intoxicated with emotions due to getting into character to play the role. And by acting out the role on stage, the actor has the intention of getting the audience to experience the same emotions. This intention is karma.</p>

<p>So, this is a question about Right Livelihood. The butcher had the intention and actions to take the life of the animals he slaughtered. And in this case, the actor had the intention and actions to reinforce emotions in the audience that are filled with passion, aversion or delusion. So, it stands to reason that such an acting career is not following Right Livelihood. This surprises me too, but it makes sense.</p>

<p>However, if the acting role results in reinforcement of thoughts and emotions that are conducive to the dhamma, then that can't be wrong in any way, can it?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately there
  was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really
  justify this harsh opinion so I just muttered an apology and moved on.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Exactly! For the very same reason, the Buddha said "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that" and refused to answer the question the first time. An actor shouldn't be put off or judged as being a bad person in public. This will take them away from the dhamma. After all, acting by itself is not bad. It's about intentions.</p>
