I tried to find the answer and looked into theses questions on the site https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5979/the-third-precept-and-prostitution https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9307/buddhist-attitude-towards-prostitution-and-non-procreative-sexual-activity https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1367/how-is-sexual-misconduct-explained-in-regards-to-the-five-precepts But I couldn't find the exact answer. So hope this is not a duplicate. The explanation I have heard regarding the third precept is for men to avoid having sex with certain types (20 types) of women. So my understanding is that a married man going to a prostitute doesn't break the third precept. Please explain if this is correct or not.

I am a teenager who has had the desire for a long time for an eternal relationship with someone. I usually do a little research into certain philosophies, and enlightenment and related things, but I no longer see hope that my wish is possible, and even though they say that the important thing is to enjoy the present, it doesn't solve anything for me, here comes the question in the title, Marital relationships are definitely impermanent? There is no way for a relationship to transcend impermanence? Other lives or after enlightenment (although I don't think it is possible in the latter)? No? It is inevitable?. I know it is a foolish desire, but what can I do?

💚Could talking with dead loved ones be in line with the proper practice of the Buddha? If proper practice permits talking to dead loved ones, then what is the proper way to talk to dead loved ones and/or the improper way to talk to dead loved ones?

I’m 23 years. I don’t have a partner. But I’ve agreed to them to look for a partner but I want to marry if I like the person only. My parents brought about 6 proposals but I didn’t connect with any. They are forcing me with a final one. They say they don’t want to look for more because it is a humiliation for them. But I don’t like the person. I spoke to him but I feel like we’re very different. And I am not physically attracted to him at all. My dad says he’s supposed to marry me off before 25. Now they are fixated on this person. But I don’t like him. My dad said he will force me into it despite my preference. I offered the option that I would like to become a Buddhist nun. They are not willing to comply with that either.

I come from a culture where marriage is seen as a must. Both of my parents are good parents, they never harm me in anyway, took a very good care of me. I am now almost 30 and they really want me to get married and have a kid, they love children. I can't blame them because it's all they've ever known in their life -- once you become an adult, marriage and having a kid is a must. I am also the first child and have always been single in all my life. However I don't see marriage as a necessity. I'm not very interested in sex nor having a kid. In my mind, I just want to live a single life so I can achieve financial freedom faster (no kids and wife) then I will donate to charities and spend my time doing things I enjoy instead of always chasing more money (it's tiring), I want to do more charity work than working for money. I take care of my parents but to take care a wife and kids I'm not very interested. Let's be realistic... kids are not cheap. What's the Buddhism view on this..? am I egotistical?

Does the Samajivina Sutta imply that a Buddhist should only marry another Buddhist? Or does it leave room for Buddhists to marry non-Buddhists ?

Let's say a person were to seek for, and enter a monogamous heterosexual relationship and eventually marriage, but actually he or she is either homosexual or bisexual (but more inclined to homosexuality). This person may genuinely believe that he or she can live the heterosexual lifestyle and marriage, and persevere in making it successful, without infidelity, despite not being intrinsically or naturally heterosexual. This may be due to conforming to social norms, local laws (where same-sex marriages and homosexuality may be illegal) and parental expectations, plus the desire to have one's own biological children, the normal way. This person may also avoid openly telling this to their prospective partner, otherwise they may lose their chance at being accepted. Would this be violating the fourth precept of not telling lies (and not being dishonest)? How should this person approach this situation instead?

In the literature we generally read that the Koliya clan, a neighbouring clan of the Sakyans, had two capitals - Devadaha and Ramagama. Moreover, the Buddha's mother Mayadevi and foster mother Mahapajapati Gautami were Koliyan ladies from Devadaha. But the following few facts cast doubt on whether Devadaha was actually a Koliyan town and whether the Buddha's maternal relatives were actually Koliyans. 1. We read that the Sakyans and the Koliyans resided on the opposite sides of the river Rohini and they often quarelled with each other over the water of that river. Now, the Sakyan capital Kapilavatthu is on the west side of the Rohini. In keeping with this, the Koliyan capital Ramagama is on the east side of the river. In contrast, Devadaha is on the west side of the Rohini. 2. In her Apadana, Gautami says that she was born in Devadaha and her father was Anjana Sakya. 3. In the opening of the Devadaha Sutta (MN 101), Devadaha is mentioned as a Sakyan town. These facts strongly point to the possibility that only Ramagama was the capital of the Koliyans. Devadaha was actually a Sakyan town and the Buddha's maternal relatives were also Sakyans. There are few additional points that strengthen this conclusion: 1. Since the Sakyans and the Koliyans were opponents, it is unlikely that they would make marrital relationship with each other. 2. We know from Bidudabha's story that the Sakyans were so proud about their nobility that they were unwilling to make relationship even with the mighty king of Kosala, Pasenadi. So how could they make relationship with the small clan Koliya? 3. The Koliyans, being a small clan like the Sakyans, were unlikely to have two capitals. Is my conclusion correct? If so, I would like to know how the ideas that the Buddha's maternal relatives were Koliyans from Devadaha entered the literature. Are there any evidence in support of this in the Pali canon or commentaries?

In most Buddhist traditions, monks are expected to follow an austere life without being married or involved with another person, but what about lay people who are not going to become monks? Personally, I've reached what most people consider mid-life and I'm getting too old for any monastery to accept me, but I'm sure this question applies to lay people both older and younger. I am under the impression, monks are required to be single because of the attachment and desire that arises when being involved. However, a good number of monks do not live among lay people which I imagine would make it easier. It seems like lay people would benefit though, and when their time on Earth has expired also make it easier to let go. However, I don't have a teacher nor do I have access to one so I wanted to reach out to the community to see what their impressions were. My guess is that it is helpful but a personal choice that differs from individual to individual. I mean 'helpful' in the sense of being closer to Nirvana or Enlightenment.

this is the situation: a children is born from fornication years ago when the couple were young, years passed the guy married. the women gave the child for adoption. Now the women brings up the child (*who is an adult now*) to the guy who is happily married. What does the Buddhist texts or teachings say about the illegitimate children born from fornication?, Is there anything that mentions this?

The title is provocative but sums up my problem: when I am immersed in Buddhist thought, I can no longer love my wife. Buddhism clearly contradicts romantic love. It tolerates it up to a certain point: but in the absolute, the practitioner is invited to (or naturally abandons) his wife to become a monk. To love one's wife romantically: it is to discriminate, it is to love her more than a cat or a neighbour for example, it is therefore to judge and prioritise. It is also to become attached: not wanting to share his wife, wanting to be with her, being sad when she is not there. It is impossible to love your wife romantically without becoming attached and/or without discriminating, putting her on a pedestal. In the end, Buddhism invites us to be indiscriminate and have only unattached love (metta). From this point on, how can one continue to be married if one is sincere in one's practice? Love your wife in this way, unattached and loving her as much as anyone else, and tell me that she is satisfied. The Buddhist ideal love is not romantic. Even if in theory the disciple can reach the sotapanna stage by staying married, isn't it hypocritical to stay married with that in mind? To love your wife until that stage knowing that you'll have to abandon her afterwards? How can you love your wife romantically, find her attractive, desirable and endearing, when you know that sooner or later this relationship will lead to pain and dissatisfaction and come to an end? I'm not clear, I'm mixing everything up, but I'm really frustrated and angry. If I had realized all this before I got married, I wouldn't have done it. But here's the thing, now I'm married, and I feel trapped. Either I stay with her and make a cross on the Nibbana, or I leave her to become a monk like the Buddha did and I make her suffer. How do you tell your wife that you will love her forever? How can you love her when you know it won't be forever and you directly perceive the dukkha of this relationship? As soon as I clearly see impermanence and dukkha, I can no longer let myself be caught up in the flow of life and love unconsciously. I hope that I am clear, I expect the usual answers "it is not all black and white, a married disciple can reach sotapanna" etc., but this kind of arguments do not work with me, I live them as pure hypocrisy. I should forget the impermanence and the dukkha of our relationship, stay in the sweet reassuring illusion of our romantic love and tell her that I love her knowing that I should abandon her after sotapanna? I love her, that's not the problem, I'm angry that my commitment contradicts the absolute truths of Buddhism and is an obstacle to my progress. I hope I am clear and that you understand me... In short: how do you succeed in loving your wife romantically and not abandoning her when you know that you will need to abandon her after sotapanna, that you will never be able to reach Nibbana by loving her, when you see directly the dukkha of your marriage, when you know that it is touched from the start by the seal of impermanence, when you know that it is an attachment from which you will have to free yourself, and so on? To put it plainly: how can one love one's wife romantically when this act contradicts all the truths of Buddhism? By deliberately remaining lukewarm and settling for half-truths?

What do you think of this article about romantic love? I am skeptical about his understanding of *upeksha*. As I understand it, romantic love does not really exist in Buddhism because the targeted love in Buddhism loves everything without discrimination (which directly contradicts romantic love where you love your beloved more than a chair, for example. You don't want to share him/her).

Do the scriptures somewhere mention that it's appropriate to go forth when having a wife & children? According to the scriptures Gotama, the Buddha-to-be, left his palace & his parents to reach enlightenment, but leaving one's parents is quite different than leaving one's wife and his child. Reference to scriptures is highly appreciated!

I have relationship with non Buddhist, and we both thinking seriously about marriage. My family could not accept him because he is not Buddhist. But as I learned so far , Buddhism teach us to love and respect all religion. Can I marry him?

The rites of marriage and death are a significant part of most religions. How does Buddhism celebrate these or any other rites?

Recently seeing questions on Buddhist stack exchange community I thought to ask this question. My understanding that we can choose anyone as life partner the way Buddha said all about is kind of qualities and so on. And Because of Buddhism is nothing but liberty that's why Buddha didn't impose this thing to followers just like in other religions. So if it was like we should marry to Buddhist only then it were Dhamma's sake and would helpful to spreading Dhamma. One another question is if both partners are from different religions then how they could lead their children? May other partner have influence of it's own religion and may this would worse everything partner's child's and own life. I seen in other religion they are super religious to choose a partner. Even my own experience my ex was a Muslim and she has great impact of religion on her since my thinking is being like that. See we Indian mostly choose Buddhist to marry but absence of practicing Dhamma. So I'd choose the one who is Buddhist and practicing Dhamma as well then we could spread it well. Finally since both are Buddhist then its kind of package we have got everything in it. All qualities and as Buddha's way to choose a life partner. So why Buddha speak about qualities instead advising people to find Buddhist partner that could one of the way to spread Dhamma? Thank you.

I know that marriage is a secular event in Buddhism, but what are the different attitudes are there for or against marriage? And what type of Buddhists(Theravada, Mahayana, Sangha, Lay etc) claim these views?

If there are no restrictions in Buddhism then why do they not want to get married?

Of course, after getting enlightened, One is free from worry: now the person is in higher dimension and is always happy, as he knows how perfect everything is. But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his responsibility? I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in the palace." How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when I think about Siddhārtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara. If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings? I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.

Genetically speaking producing your own children perpetuates your own genes. Buddha spoke at length about the 31 Planes of Existence. What is Buddhism's (not just Theravada) position on having children? Namely the benefits of producing and caring for children? Or does Buddhism mostly see them as a constraint (i.e. Rahula "chain") and there is no connection between between your own progeny and the afterlife?