What is it? Is sex just for pleasure with your partner breaking a precept? Eg with a condom. And is being circumcised bad over personal preferences/ (hygiene,aesthetic)? is oral and anal sex bad? Is masturbation bad? And is circumcising your sons bad?

In contemporary society (apart from religion) sex is mostly seen as something pleasurable, which is done even without considering childbearing. As far as I can see, Buddha taught extensively to lay people how to treat each other friendly & compassionately, but omitted the bodily intimacy aspect of it. It's largely sensual desire that binds human couples together, and I am not merely referring to appearance, but also the craving to be touched etc. (as it's always correctly pointed out in the suttas: Pleasant feelings at the 5 sense doors) Q1: Did the Buddha remain silent on these matters because of a specific reason? Q1.1Was the Buddha even concerned about sexual objectification & did he suggested perhaps sexual repression? Dhammapda 242 states: >Unchastity is the taint in a woman Q2: Could it be that a majority of Buddha's teaching are timeless, but few are open for change, due to different societal context etc.? (e.g., 3rd precept) Q3: In the above quote, isn't it a bit biased to state that it's ONLY a woman's taint? Why not a man? Why focus overly on women? Back in those days, there were probably fixed gender roles, but I believe society should progress & should rather acknowledge individuality even among the genders. It seems that the Buddha is over-generalizing, or did the miss the boat?

Is this phrase analogous to over-indulgence in sense pleasures, or is indulgence in any sense pleasure at any level considered a form of misconduct? Thankya

I am beginner in journey of way to truth, and life in general, through Buddhism. It's not long since I discovered Buddhism, and it really gives me insight in life. My question is that I'm having really hard time, and I'm in confusion about what to do, in that my family is tearing apart because my mother is cheating on father with another married man, and I don't know what to do about it.

Was re-watching the movie "Thus have I heard " and started to ponder about the 3 daughters of Mara? What happened to Tanha, Arati and Raga after they failed to enamour the Buddha post his enlightenment? Did they die and if they did, where were they reborn? Is there any information about them in the texts? Can someone please shed light.

I've heard that intensive meditation of certain kinds can lead to the development of supernormal powers such as penetration into others minds (reading minds) and hearing sounds from far away (Divine ear). From a Buddhist point of view, what is the benefit to being able to discern the thoughts and far away voices of others given that most people are not yet enlightened and their thoughts and words are likely colored with the defilement of desire, aversion, and delusion? It would seem possible that such an ability might lead to suffering for the one discerning the unguarded (and unenlightened) thoughts and words of others. **Edit** As an example, if one reflects on thoughts that have arisen in one's own mind, there are likely thoughts that you wouldn't share with anyone because they are base, mean, hurtful. Why would an advanced meditator want to subject themselves to being able to receive such thoughts? Is there a traditional Buddhist view on how such abilities are advantageous or even wholesome?

I am a Theravada Buddhist. I got selected to a government university in my country. I got a message saying “Your online registration under Additional Intake for Special Subject for the A/Y 21/22 is available at…” When I went to the website I saw a notice regarding special intake, which is not related to me. So I thought the message I got must have been about the special intake. So, I didn’t search any further. Some time went by. Later I got to know that we could make appeals to enter a university. Then, I discovered that I had actually been selected to the university I wanted to enter. By then, the time to register had passed. As a result of confusing the message I got with the special intake, I lost the chance to register on time. I also got to know that in order to appeal to enter that university it would be better if we gave a medical reason justifying our inability to register on time. I wasn’t willing to do that because saying that I couldn’t Register due to a medical reason would be a lie violating the fourth precept. However, at the time I got selected for university and missed the chance to register, I was taking treatment for OCD and secondary depression. At the time I missed this chance, I was studying in another institute and I wasn’t mainly focusing on entering a government university. Later I sent a request to register late at the university. I was told that giving a medical reason would ensure the success of the process. In my request I mentioned that I couldn’t register initially due to a shortcoming, which from the above, was the case. To give the medical reason I said that I was taking treatment for OCD and secondary depression at this time and was less concerned about entering a university. I said that I was under treatment and believed I was in a fit state to enter, therefore I asked them to grant my request. I felt guilty that I might be violating the fourth precept by lying, but nevertheless I sent the request. It worked and I got selected to the university. My question is, considering the above facts, did I violate the fourth precept by lying? I feel guilty about it at times. I would appreciate your opinion

Namaste, Namo Buddhaya. I'm here in my personal pursuit to understand *death* and *soul* from various perspectives. A few days back I was reading texts on life, death, and reincarnation and got to know that there exist some meditations that cause *OBEs* (Out-of-body Experiences), an important part of NDEs (Near-death Experiences). Biologists and doctors while simulating NDEs in labs concluded that a very large portion of people recall OBE experiences. The official Wikipedia page on NDEs does mentions that: > A three-year longitudinal study has revealed that some Buddhist > meditation practitioners are able to willfully induce near-death > experiences at a pre-planned point in time. Unlike traditional NDEs, > participants were consciously aware of experiencing the > meditation-induced NDE and retained control over its content and > duration. The Dalai Lama has also asserted that experienced > meditators can deliberately induce the NDE state during meditation, > being able to recognize and sustain it. So there are certain medications that can induce OBEs (or roughly, NDEs) too. In the meantime to further research I found a few links on such meditations, one by a Hindu Guru Swami Sivananda : > During the course of practice, one day you will feel that you have > separated yourself from the body. You will have immense joy mixed with > fear, joy in the possession of a new, light, astral body, fear owing > to the entry in a foreign, unknown plane. At the very outset, the new > consciousness is very rudimentary in the new plane, just as in the > case of a pup with newly opened eyes in the eighth or tenth day on the > physical plane. where he tells the experiences of OBEs. Unfortunately, he doesn't elaborate on the details of the meditation. I assumed it was particularly meditation on a point between eyebrows and after a month of practice, I don't see any progress particularly here. I just wish to know what form of meditation in Buddhism (apart from Yoga Nidra Tantra in Hinduism which is basically just hypnosis from sleep) causes OBEs? If my efforts are in the right place.

Mindfulness: the Vipassana Meditation is a great methodology to reduce suffering, avoid attachments and gain pure happiness. **But** in present education, competition, living needs, relationships, responsibilities, duties etc too much are mandatorily attached to a single person. So is it really practical to practice this except bhikkhus?

I am undergoing a strange period during vipassana meditation (sn goenka guruji tradition). When I am scanning my body there is an extreme stiffness that travels almost throughout the body as my attention shifts and stays in that body part till my attention stays. My body part visibly gets tensed while this happens. e.g. foot and toes are all visibly tense and toes are bent. In the core of the body I have slightly different stiffness experience. I feel like stiffness wants to rise through the spine and gets stuck in multiple spots and puts lot of pressure on that part as if trying to break away. But then I realize I am not breathing as core moves if i breathe and i am stuck focusing on this rising stiffness. If I breathe at this stage, I get out of this and then stiffness goes away and I stop feeling this and other sensations in my body for sometime. Then as I start scanning again the same stiffness comes back. If I don't breathe this goes till neck and throat region gets stuck in neck and leaves me in pain afterwards. I am assuming this is usual sankhara coming and trying to observe with equanimity but unlike other sensations that come and go after observation, this one is increasingly capturing my entire body part by part. This has been happening for last one week. Not sure if I am doing something wrong.

Sleep paralysis is a condition which occurs up to as many as 4 out of every 10 people according to some statistics. Sleep paralysis happens when one is about to fall asleep or while waking up during the transitional states between wakefulness and sleep. In the course of sleep paralysis one will experience temporary paralysis that makes it unable to move or speak. The paralysis may last usually only few minutes. In addition the individual might also perceive terrifying hallucinations that are made worse with the inability to move or speak.

Since we have the law of karma then there should be no need for laws or prisons? The law of karma will issue out punishment automatically. So if you murder someone there will be equal consequences regardless. Is this correct?

In the Kakacupama Sutta, the Buddha says the following > "Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves." I always believe in the value of 'healthy anger' as a way of defending yourself and protecting your boundaries. Many times, abusers will keep abusing you and escalate if you remain unaffected. They see your lack of retaliation as a sign of weakness, or a signal to escalate the abuse. The only thing they respond to is consequence. Yet this teaching seems to imply that you should remain unaffected 'even if bandits were to carve you up savagely'. Shouldn't I demonstrate some aggression or anger to make the abuser back off, rather than allowing him to accrue even more negative karma by abusing me? Isn't it a lose-lose scenario to allow myself to be 'carved up savagely'? I know there is also the parable of the Buddha giving up his body to feed a starving tiger out of compassion in one of his past lives. I'm far from reaching the Buddha's level of compassion. This means I still suffer, even if a bit, from the abuser's words and actions. In such a situation, shouldn't I retaliate (skillfully)?

Currently when I walk to work I frequently pass Christians of various denominations passing out free books and talking to passers by. I have never heard of a Buddhist group doing the same. I think it is a common perception that Buddhism is not an evangelical religion and Christianity most definitely is. I think this one of the reasons is why people (in the UK) are generally fairly well disposed to Buddhists. But are my perceptions correct? Is Buddhism really not an evangelical religion? It is a universal religion like Christianity and in both there are notions of personal salvation (liberation/nirvana) that surely everyone would benefit from. Is there something in the scriptures or teachings that make Buddhist less evangelical? Or is it just something cultural and in a different place and time things might look very different? Or am I just flat wrong and Buddhism wants to spread the word just as much as Christianity but I'm just not seeing it.

What are the similarities and contrasts between Buddhism and Christianity? To what extent do they make it possible (or not) to practice in and hold the beliefs of both?

How closely aligned are Buddhist ethics and Nietzschean values? I know a little about both, and may even have read a comparative study (some time ago). Was hoping to harmonise them via 'karma': the agent experiences the result. But there seems no linguistic or rational reason which is strong enough to believe in rebirth, so it seems to me that Nietzsche's analysis (only the success of the superman matters) cannot be reconciled with Buddhism. If so, I'll probably side with Buddhist ethics (I think we need art, not individuals, and Buddhism doesn't make only for worthless aesthetics), but it's a blow, because in the process we may have to sacrifice what is - it is sometimes claimed - is the very highest type of well being possible. This question is just from someone who has read a small bit of Nietzsche studies (I'm not philosopher), but I take claims about morality quite seriously, that's all.

I wouldn't have thought so in the 80's or the 90's, or maybe not so intensely. But nowadays, I frequently have to think: this person is behaving like this, like he or she is not human. And then, I had the theory that, if the world had 2 billion people before, and then 4 billion, 6 billion, and 8 billion now, where do the extra 6 billion souls come from? Do they have to come from the souls of insects, reptiles, rodents, and other animals? And then when I read the Six Paths in Buddhism , there are 6 paths of beings reincarnation: 1. God / Heaven path 2. Human 3. Demigod 4. Hell 5. Hungry spirits 6. Beasts The first 3 are Virtue paths, and the last 3 are Evil paths, and Demigod is into fighting, so they are sometimes considered to be the Evil path. So if the number of beings in each path is even, then it explains well: only 33% of people we see are the God / Heaven or Human path. The other 67% are Evil path. It could be the Hell path that would hurt people no matter what, the Hungry spirit path that are extremely selfish and always ponder how to take advantage of others, the Beast path who are apathetic to others and have sociopath personalities. Can the Six Paths correctly explain it?

can tathā be described as “thing-in-itself”? how about “natural state”? properly, thing-in-itself , is a Kantian invention that denotes objective existence. is tathā a buddhist goal? is tathā liberation? does the experience of tathā generate attachment to a self-entity? is there a useful relationship between tathā and bhava? from https://www.learnreligions.com/tathata-or-suchness-450014 “the word tathata is sometimes used interchangeably with sunyata, or emptiness. While all phenomena are empty (sunyata) of self-essence, they are also full (tathata). They are "full" of reality itself, of everything.”

Where does it say jhanas are necessary (or not) to realize the four supramundane paths (stream-entry, etc)?

It's said that some kammas are not to be experienced, some kammas have to be experienced. Not all kammas have to be experienced. For example Angulimala story, the bad vipaka of killing many people could not come into fruition because he had cut the cycle of birth and death. > Seeds ripen only if they meet the right conditions. But if they do not > meet the right conditions they remain as seeds; if they are destroyed > they can never ripen at all. As mentioned here: [Questions on Kamma](http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha057.htm) But in [Karajakā­ya­sutta](https://suttacentral.net/an10.219/en/sujato) , it says: > I do not say that there is making an end of suffering so long as one > has not experienced the results of volitional kamma that has been done > and accumulated. Which one is the correct one, do they contradict each other?