Someone told me the other day that a Sotapanna has perfect morality, particularly five precepts. I think I did read somewhere a Sotapanna has perfect morality but I forget the source. Can someone refer me to any source that says a Sotapanna has perfect sila?

Two spelling/usage questions about two Sanskrit words common in Buddhism. First, what is the difference between Madhyamaka (ending in "aka") and Madhyamika (ending in "ika"). I have seen that the former is the doctrine or school while the latter is an adherent of that school. Is that correct? Second, are either or both properly rendered in the Latin alphabet with or without the straight bar diacritical over the initial a: Madhyamaka or Mādhyamaka; Madhyamika or Mādhyamika. I have seen it both ways in numerous contexts.

Today morning, while browsing certain virtual Dhamma-places, the thought came into my persons mind: "Indeed, there are seldom people who give without out expecting anything, food (for good thoughts), clothes (accounts), shelter (space), and medicin (assistanes to exist further) for long life and comfortable existence, shelter and help for the Dhamma and long time welfare for many. What if I ask about the secound kind of seldom people in this world, to bring this also into attention?" Now having taken time for following that thought, my person likes to ask: **What would be the proper way to pay back goodness done to one?** **What kind of ways are there, to do so?** **What are the stages of being grateful, in accordiance to right view and ones personal circumstances?** ...when we make use of facilities, time, sacrifies... of others. >**[Has done much](http://sangham.net/index.php/page,s0402m2.mul2_en_uppa.html#an03.24)** > >"These three persons have done much to a person. Which three? The person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus. > >"The person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness. > >"Again, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. These three persons have done much to this person. > >"It is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites." May you like to let remembering words of Dhamma but also you most inner heart try to give an good answer. *(Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains)*

I am thinking about making a practice based on enjoyment to help gain motivation to do stuff - a positive incentive but not sure how to do it (or even if i should do it) - all tips appreciated even if its just one i do correct vipassana meditation finished with a short metta meditation - still i dont enjoy it really not the 1 minute meditation not the 2 hour meditation and i am aware of benefits of the practice from study and from experience but not enough to combat the hindrances - and since i stop practicing for few months try and stop try and stop my motivation is really low maybe if i say i eat a piece of chocolate/listening to music/watching videos etc after i meditate ? but that is to much greed and will probably harm the meditation cause i will think about the "prize" at the end im asking based on an answer i got here on a different topic which made me think about it : > There is a big obvious difference between doing something because you > want it and enjoying the effort, VERSUS beating yourself with a stick > like a horse. In one case you are working hard but you're enjoying it, > you doing what you believe in, you're getting deep sense of > satisfaction from it. In the other case, you are forcing yourself, > breaking yourself, torturing yourself - you don't really believe in > it, you hate yourself for doing it, but you're still doing it. > > My teacher said that the feeling of special enjoyment or satisfaction > is a key criteria for success in spiritual practice. If you're doing > too little, you will not be happy with yourself. If you are pushing > yourself too hard, you will not be happy with yourself. If you are > doing it right, it may be hard and painful - but you will feel happy > and proud and inspired. from : https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/24560/pushing-onself-too-much/24607#24607

There are definitions of *metta* and *karuna* here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/14307/254 There's a [tag:metta-bhavana] meditation. I'm wondering how to practice these socially, though, e.g. as a lay person when talking with people individually or in a group (or perhaps even as a monk talking with people). In particular what type of view should you try to have of (or see in) people? --- My question is sparked by [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/24561/does-buddhism-have-an-answer-to-disturbing-sexual-fantasies#comment41376_24571) : > I posted the way of the Buddha, which is metta plus asuba. Asuba alone won't work. Metta is to view women as mothers, sisters & daughters rather than to view them as sex objects. If you can see that sexual promiscuity of women diminishes & often destroys the capacity for good motherhood, then you might understand the teachings of Gotama better. In summary, asuba is not really necessary for laypeople. It is generally pointless suggesting asuba to a layperson who does not have the disposition to be a monk. I found that comment questionable, because why not view women as people? Viewing "women" as "mothers" sounds like pigeon-holing "them" as just another type of sex-object (gender-specific-object) or social role/stereotype/function (slave). I mean, "yes" to *metta* -- but "metta" isn't necessarily to "view women as mothers", or is it? But then the question occurred, if metta *isn't* as described in the comment then what *does* metta mean? The reason I found the above comment questionable is because I expect a person (a woman) might view him- or her-self in a variety of ways: as a mother, as an adult child, as a consumer, as a worker, an athlete, a friend, a volunteer, a voter, and so on ... different views (different ambitions or roles) at different times. I think that holding a view of someone that isn't the same as their own current view of themselves is a form of harm and a cause of suffering (e.g. a view like "you can't be a friend because you're a woman", "you can't be an employee because you're a mother", "you can't be political because you're a girl", while she wants to be a friend or employee or etc). So maybe "sympathy" means that you should see other people as they see themselves? But someone's view-of-self might be a cause of suffering too, so maybe it's better if you *don't* try to see each person as they see themselves? Perhaps it's fantasy to hope that you can see others as they themselves, except in limited circumstances (e.g. in a job interview)? In summary this question (about metta and interacting with people) has devolved towards views-of-self and the thicket-of-views. --- So what can be said about metta and karuna, if they interact with identity-view, self-view? What does a kind of transactional behaviour (attitude) sound like (is it good or bad?) e.g. a view like, "you're a bus driver and I'm here because I'm on the bus ... it doesn't matter who you think you are, nothing matters except your driving the bus and me having an absolute minimum standard of politeness so as not to be actually offensive"? Sorry if this is a confused question. The suttas (e.g. [Sigalovada Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html)) necessarily talk about general truths, and ends up maybe seeming impersonal, cold, robotic, and I'm not sure if that's the right impression or the whole lesson.

What are the Tibetan Buddhist beliefs of the Dalai Lama being an incarnation of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara? Do all Buddhists agree with this idea?

Knowing that people in our social circle are not versed in the Dhamma, they seek gratification through the sense spheres (sensuality). For example, most people like to be praised and engage in idly talk. But we know that these things strengthens the kilesas (especially when the topic is about political or social issues). The Buddha said that the Dhamma is the greateast gift. But common social occasions are unfit to talk about the Dhamma (or even anything really meaningful which will lead to a long term benefit). If I don't engage in idly talk with someone, He/she will probably think I'm being cold. But if I do, I will be contributing for the increase of their attachments and unwholesome mental states. So, I wonder if there is a proper way to exercise goodwill and merit towards someone in such situations. Or am I thinking too much and should only intend to keep a heart of goodwill rather than make a active effort to preserve or increase their wellbeing?

I'm really interested in Buddhism, but I have a hard time motivating myself to follow the five precepts. I don't particularly want to stop eating meat, let alone stop drinking and/or smoking. Can I still move along the Buddhist path? In the path to the disappearance of suffering? Thanks!

There are many arguments whether a sotapanna has a perfect morality/sila or not. But let's base this topic on this Sutta: > With what four factors of a stream enterer is he endowed? > > ...Is endowed with virtues that are not broken, not defective, not > spotted, consistent, not blemished, not enslaved, praised by the wise > as conducive to concentration and desired by the noble ones He is > endowed with these four factors of a stream enterer....Anguttara Nikaya 9.27 Now, for example, a deadly worm is in the stomach of a sotapanna's child. The only thing to help his child is to kill the worm otherwise his child will die. With his perfect morality, what would a sotapanna do, will a sotapanna (naturally) let his child die?

I read once, online, someone (perhaps in the Tibetan tradition if that matters) saying that the four brahmaviharas are inter-related -- in particular, that too much of one is counteracted by a bit of another. For example: - Feeling too sorry for someone (too much compassion/*karuna*) is counteracted by a bit of *mudita* (remembering the ways in which that person is virtuous or fortunate) - Similarly, too much of each of the other three is counter-balanced by a bit of each of the others I was reminded of it by [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24551/254) ("in good there is seed of bad"). I don't remember the explanation I read, though, and I wasn't able to find the reference again. Is that anything you've heard before? If you know the explanation but don't know a reference for it, that's OK too (I'd be happy to read just your explanation of it even without a reference).

I wasn't lucky enough to be born in a Buddhist society and I only discovered Buddhism late in life mainly because of my innate dissatisfaction with life as a whole. Actually, I was born into a middle-class family and life wasn't that grim when I grow up, but even at my young age, I saw life as a journey that one has to pass through without his will. Funny enough, I used to envy old people because I thought that they are approaching freedom which is death. Obviously, I was wrong, death according to Buddhism is just one step in the cycle, I mean for those of us trading the circle of Samsara. Now, I'm convinced and I have faith in the teaching of the Buddha, but I sometimes fear that I'm too old to abandon the world and become a monk. I'm in my mid thirty have I missed the boat? I have vowed to follow all precepts stated for the lay followed, however, I don't want to feel comfortable in the worldly life and I want to maintain my zeal to become a monk, if not now may be in the next life. What should I do friends? Many thanks.

I believe that the word 'dharma' (among other things) refers to the constituent elements of a body and mind, and that the Buddhist should find those dharmas void of a person, and perhaps any substantial quality whatsoever. How is dharma formed? "Form" is one of the skandhas, what a body-and-mind (I believe 'nama-rupa' in the sanskrit word for that?) has contact with in order to generate the rest of us. Is there a Buddhist philosopher who talks or debates, perhaps at length, and ideally grounded in sutras, about how dharmas depend upon form? I suspect there's a major / basic teaching on this, just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything, when i research this question, which I find interesting because the contemporary world seems to make its ideas out of "form".

I hear some people saying that after death souls often get re-born among close relatives. For example, your grand parent may be re-born as your child after death. Although I never believed in this in the past, due to some of the incidents that happened during last couple of years, I feel like there is some truth about this. Does Buddha give any explanations in this respect?

How can science support or challenge the concept of Karma?

What is the goal for this mastery exactly? I'm guessing it's to look back at your jhana meditation and see what happen. What went wrong, what are things you can improve, what lead to jhana & lsot the jhana etc. Is this correct? I want to make sure i understand completely.

I have extreme sexual fantasies that hurt me (submission, candaulism, etc.). Because of the internet and pornography many young people have increasingly extreme fantasies, and when they are attached to submitting to the partner, many suffer from it and would like to become dominant, strong, or at least normal men again. Does Buddhism have a solution to cure these sexual disorders? Regards.

What I have read says that the cessation of all passion is one of the goals in Buddhism. However I was already married when I started this practice. How can I be a good husband and a good Buddhist at the same time?

If somebody goes beyond fourth jhanas and has received super knowledge and also powers, than why don't he shows it to world and shares his knowledge and experience to world or say scientist and science community so that the general humans will believe in dharma and religion?

If semigods/devas/dities are their, than why don't they tell us that they do exists, so that people will follow dharma with out doubt?

Does someone have to have perfect morality or sila in order to be reborn in a heavenly realm? If yes, could someone provide the source?