Does a sotapanna still experience afflictive thoughts and or engage in unwholesome activities etc or have they transcended such things?

I formerly practiced with the local Shambhala group. I took my Refuge Vows there, received some random Buddhist name that had nothing to do with my studies or who I am; and was told I was now a member of Chogyam Trungpa's lineage. Since then I found out about the disgusting sexual and physical abuse perpetrated by Chogyam Trungpa and his son, the current Sakyong, and have not been able to continue with the Shambhala teachings. My question (and I apologize for its being so very basic) is: can a refugee somehow change lineages? I asked this of an older woman there whom I respected,and she said no without any explanation. I now am studying the teachings of H.H. the Dalai Lama, and do not really know what tradition I am in. I have practiced on my own -- with the exception of my few Shambhala years -- for about 20 years, but am not very knowledgeable about the scriptures. Any link to a good beginner's guide would be much appreciated. I hope I have not violated any rules. And thanks in advance for any answers. I really don't want to be associated with Shambhala in any way. If there is a way to change my lineage, I'd really like to know.

The following story comes in Udana 1.8 . It is about a monk by the name of Sanghamaji, who, when seated under a tree, was visited by his former wife, carrying their infant son. She tried several times to get his attention, and having failed, left the son at his feet and went a short distance away, to observe his reaction. The monk neither reacted, nor said anything to the woman or her child. She then took back the child and left the scene, while lamenting about her former husband's lack of feelings for them, saying "the monk doesn't even care about his son." The Buddha, who witnessed this supernaturally, praised the monk, saying (I paraphrase here) that he showed equanimity and is free from attachment, and is therefore a brahman. We can say that the monk displayed equanimity (upekkha), but then seemed to lack compassion (karuna). In the essay entitled "Toward a Threshold of Understanding ", Bhikkhu Bodhi discusses this: > The Pali word that the Pope interprets as "indifference" is presumably > upekkha. **The real meaning of this word is equanimity, not indifference > in the sense of unconcern for others.** As a spiritual virtue, upekkha > means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. > It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner > equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, > praise and blame, pleasure and pain. **Upekkha is freedom from all > points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of > the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the > well-being of one's fellow human beings.** True equanimity is the > pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the > "divine abodes": boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic > joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the > preceding three, but perfects and consummates them. How do we interpret the actions (or non-actions) of Sanghamaji? Did he lack compassion? Should he not have addressed his former wife compassionately, and given her an explanation of the Dhamma, and the path to the end of suffering? The sutta does not say if he ensured that the welfare of his wife and son is taken care of, before leaving the lay life of a householder.

How are goals used in Theravada Buddhism and Buddhist practice in general in a positive way. --- How do goals relate to the early teachings, and one's own practice in a positive way. ------ *Prior discussions on Buddhism Stack Exchange:* - Difference between Attachment and Goals - Does suffering motivate us to achieve our goals? - Is it possible to set goals for the future and be present at the same time? - Is Nirvana the goal, for Zen and Theravada? - Why does Buddhism seem to have more than one goal? - Should meditation be practiced without a goal? - Is Nirvana the goal for all Buddhist? - Is mindfulness the path or the goal? - How can someone integrate the Buddhist philosophy on life's purpose into daily life? - Ambitions - Are they Real or just an Illusion - Stopping Tanha or craving - Attachment to practice itself

I was part of a religious group that claimed to be everything that the Buddha teaches. But, when you listen to their teachings, you can tell discrepancies between their teachings and Buddhist teachings. I just saw many people being misguided, but I do not know what to do. (Just to clarify, the religious group I'm referring to is neither Mahayana nor Theravada. But, the question can be generalized further if necessary.) On one end, I do not wish to create any conflict among anyone. On the other end, I feel sad that many people are misguided into the teaching. So, the question is: What should I do? Any answers based on experience would be AWESOME, and experience + Scripture references (said by famous teachers or based on Pali Canon) would be an Awesome+++infinity. :) Once again, I hope to find a method that does not create animosity. Thanks Buddhist Community! Praises to the Dharma. ******As for an explanation on how this question is different from the forum titled "How to address wrong view", it's pretty much the same, except this is more scenario-based. I just wanted a different perspective/insight to this specific scenario. My ultimate goal is to avoid conflict!!!

I'm referring to Mantras listed [here](https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/docs/support/world_religions/buddhism/practices.pdf) such as the **Shakyamuni Mantra**: > *Om Muni Muni Mahamuni Shakyamuniye Svaha* In Buddhist practice throughout the world, what is the predominant practice: are those mantras translated into the local language or do adherents recite them in the original Sanskrit? If one can choose, is there any spiritual benefit from reciting them in Sanskrit during meditation?

Humans are sure they're the peak of evolution, even though we evolved as top predators and still en mass treat the planet as if we're top predators even if we're not directly officially involved in the destruction. Out thoughts are are our main blockages to enlightenment and being connected with something higher. So why are we so sure we're higher than the smart vegetarian animals like whale and elephants? Is it possible whales are floating around the ocean, not caught up in all the negative mindset we suffer, and actually already connected to higher planes of consciousness?

I know what Buddhism teaches about 6 realms,and devas in particular.But what is the Buddhist take on,say,pagan gods-to what kind of entity people turn when they say they work with Thor for example,or any other pagan/heathen god?What are they according to Buddhism?

Is there any convincing interpretation of [Vessantara Jātaka](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j6/j6013.htm) that isn't in conflict with morality? Vessantara gave away his children to serve as slaves for no particular reason; it is not clear how not giving them away would hinder his own awakening. I can see how one might argue from the Buddhist perspective that attachment to one's children and anger towards their oppressors is a bad thing. One can, however, protect one's children from oppressors in a completely detached way, without generating any attachment or hatred. Moreover, it's not that he just didn't resist; instead he actively looked for his children when they had run away, in order to give them away to Jūjaka. All in all, Vessantara's behaviour caused a lot of suffering to his children for no reason whatsoever, and he not only didn't get condemned, but was even presented as the one who did the right thing. Is there any way to reconcile this story with morality?

I read the following on the internet: > Primary mistake is thinking that anattā means no soul or that "there > is no self". In Sabbāsavā Sutta the Buddha explicitly says that "there > is no self" is a wrong view born of inappropriate attention. "**I am** > nothing" or "**I** **do** not exist" is a wrong view born of asking the wrong > questions. Did the Buddha explicitly say in Sabbāsavā Sutta "there is no self" is a wrong view?

I have a friend who is a Christian. It is a truism that most people can't tolerate sitting and doing nothing because of catastrophic dukkha. Most people, including people I know, have to DO something all the time. But my old friend would spend hours sitting on his porch, a smile on his face, by himself, just enjoying the present moment. Is this a form of jhana? Is it possible that there are many run of the mill, non-buddhist people who actually understand and practice a kind of jhana unintentionally?

I often experience hallucinogenic images during meditation. I don't believe they are caused by lack of sleep as they occur irrespective of my state of tiredness. Typically the sequence goes 1. Meditating with a lot of discursive thoughts 2. Discursive thoughts settling down 3. Commencement of strange dream like images 4. If i go through this then thought drops away and it the start of a calmer more focused meditation I don't always get the images but if I do then they are very difficult to work with. They are more dominating than the discursive thoughts and more difficult to see them for what they are. However I know that if I can go through this stage then meditation really becomes a lot easier and more pleasurable afterwards (fourth stage above). Has anyone got any advice about working with these kind of hallucinogenic images? Is there any advice either from traditional texts or contemporary teachers about them? Is it just me?

What is the historical and scriptural basis for the modern Theravada Buddhist View "Life is one and indivisible", "everything is one"? --- Is this a view that has been added later? Is it a misrepresentation of right understanding? *This question was supred from the discussion with @ChrisW here *

What does a Buddhist practitioner, based on the 8 fold path, and deepening practice contemplate to become a sotāpanna (a stream-enterer)?

***According to the Buddha, what is samsara made of?*** 1. Karma? 2. All the Buddhist realms of existence? 3. You're momment by moment mind and body experiencial arisings as they happen? 4. Isn't samsara what arises when you meditate satipatthana?

Does a person cultivating bodhicitta qualify as a bodhisattva? Or to qualify as a bodhisattva, does one need to have levelled-up to some degree in the perfection of the great perfections. I have seen/heard this discussed before, but it was a while ago and I can't remember where I would find the references. I'm not sure any answers to this question would have a major impact on the actual application of cultivating bodhicitta, but I would enjoy exploring the concepts around it. This is my first question on Stack Exchange, so I am open to feedback about whether the format and content of my question is suitable for this forum.

So I am into buddha learning for some years now, and some people ask me " **What is Buddhism**" , with a blank look on their face. Based on their level of experience, which is pretty much zero yet with genuine wonderment, I have tailored my answer to what I consider the best at that time. I have, over the years, delivered the following answers: "*Buddhism is about raising your level of awareness*." Does anyone have any suggestions on how to say or explain also, " *Learning about the Buddha is about studying sutra, or the sacred texts, and then doing your best to live the sutras*." and this one too, " *The Buddha taught that he got there and being a human being, as you are a human being, you can also follow this path should you choose*. " I am seeking further answers to this genuine question honest people ask me.

My mother and I come from a non-Buddhist culture/background/society/country/family. At one point when I had an opportunity to explain to her what Buddhism is, I was doing well (i.e. she was listening and accepting what I was saying) when I was explaining that Buddhism includes a non-fixed identity-view and explaining why a non-fixed identity view is skillful (e.g. because an attitude such as attachment to your job/profession might be unpleasant when you retire, and because people's abilities and health change with age). But then what I mentioned the first Noble Truth she seemed to object, saying "Sorry you think life is suffering/dissatisfaction, I don't agree: I like life, I think life is good." --- So - Do you ever try to explain Buddhism to someone who barely knows the first thing about it, and if so what is your strategy for how to explain it? - Do you explain 'dukkha' using the classic 'death/poverty/illness/old age', and/or is there a better way to explain the first noble Truth? - Are there any alternate way to introduce Buddhism which don't begin with the first Noble Truth? - Might it be better to explain what I think Buddhism might mean to me (why it appeals to me) personally? I fear that might make it less strange to her ("yes I see why you like it") but at the same time less acceptable ("but it isn't for me because I'm not like you"). - Should I understand that if that's her reaction it's because she's already doing a lot of things right (e.g. not spending her life feeling angry)?

What are the rules or guidelines on how a Buddhist should engage with others who would like to discuss philosophies, beliefs, ideas, and practices of other religions or belief systems? - Are Buddhists allowed to discuss / engage in the ideas to some degree? Or is it shunned. - How does Buddhism incorporate ideas outside the main canon / system? _(Generally speaking)_ - Are certain topics to be never discussed? This would help me ask better questions to the Buddhism community in general, but also would serve as a gauge as to how to interact. Basically, what is acceptable conversation topics in the end.

Greetings to all respected forum participants! Throughout many years, starting from school, I've noticed that compared to my peers, colleagues, classmates, etc., I often ended up being the least productive. I could spend a lot of time and effort on a task (especially creative ones - simple calculation or rewriting tasks were easy and quick, where I didn't need to concentrate heavily), which others completed faster and more easily. Meanwhile, my peers would manage to do something else in their free time or simply feel less exhausted, whereas I would spend extensive time and energy. Recently, I've realized that I'm a perfectionist. I spend a lot of time and effort to prepare and present a perfect result that I will achieve on the first try. Moreover, I have a deep-rooted fear of failure that originated in childhood. So if I need to do something responsible and present it to others, I'll spend a lot of time alone to be 100% confident in my abilities. From all of this stems my primary problem, which people have pointed out since childhood - distraction. For three months, I've tried to incorporate meditation into my daily life as a habit. I managed to create daily training routines at work and home when they're tied to a schedule, time, or place, but meditation is consistently avoided by me. I even set myself a limit of 5 minutes of meditation. Even the prospect of 5 minutes of meditation often feels like torture, especially after a hard workday. So with mild fatigue, I always found excuses for why I shouldn't meditate today. Procrastinating meditation is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, because of this, I'm low-productivity at work, do little in my hobby and personal development, and very often try to avoid concentration. At the same time, I don't have a strong phone addiction. I don't watch TikTok for hours, can sit at home in silence for hours and calmly read a book. But the moment I want to read a book, I'll postpone it because I'll be afraid to concentrate and spend time reading just one book. Friends, have any of you encountered this? What solutions do you see from a Buddhist perspective?