text:
Not understanding Jhana Mastery Of Reflection?
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.

Generally speaking, when we start on the spiritual path, we almost completely lack a feedback mechanism. It's like we are numb. It's like we dance with a woman stepping on her feet and not even noticing it, and not seeing how she cringes. Or we see, and feel something we step on, but can't connect the two. Untrained mind is like that.
Then as we watch ourselves critically in our day to day life, and as we stare at ourselves for hours during meditation, we start getting some sensitivity. It's like iceskating, initially we don't feel much with our feet and then we begin to feel the surface, and then it's almost like we grow eyes on our feet and can see every nuance of the surface. Same with our ability to reflect upon our state of mind, it gets clearer and smarter and more precise year after year of practice, until it becomes a superuseful everpresent feedback mechanism.
Eventually what we get is this wonderful ability to balance and tune our mind dynamically, right in the midst of any situation, by plugging the self-reflective ability as feedback into the state of the mind itself. So at the mastery level, we never get angry or selfish or miserable not because we are now gods, but because we can see troublesome mindstates from miles away coming up, before they really descend and become a problem. And we can counterbalance them with very little effort pretty early on.
So that's the goal of developing mastery of reflection, is to eventually get an automatic mind balancing mechanism.

That was a really simple yet understandable explanation

Pa-auk monastery tradition:
If you ask this question at pa-auk, they will recommend "you should in meditation, first". Because mind and mind factors arising are very fast and complex. So, it is not possible for no-attained-jhāna-person to clearly understand jhāna factors. And I am agree with that recommend, too.
This image captured from TEACHING & TRAINING book of Pa-auk monastery:

From path of purification pāli, pathavīkasiṇaniddesa:

ayaṃ panettha atthappakāsanā, paṭhamajjhānato vuṭṭhāya paṭhamaṃ vitakkaṃ āvajjayato bhavaṅgaṃ upacchinditvā uppannāvajjanānantaraṃ vitakkārammaṇāneva cattāri pañca vā javanāni javantiฯ tato dve bhavaṅgāni, tato puna vicārārammaṇaṃ āvajjanaṃ, vuttanayāneva javanānīti evaṃ pañcasu jhānaṅgesu yadā nirantaraṃ cittaṃ pesetuṃ sakkoti, athassa āvajjanavasī siddhā hotiฯ

Translation:

Emerges 1st jhāna, then...
Bhavaṅga-minds auto arising, break it, then ...
Thinking of vitakka by only 4-5 javana-minds arising, then...
Agree only 2 bhavaṅga-minds arising, break it, then...
Thinking of vicāra by only 4-5 javana-minds arising, then...
Loop 4-5 steps by 5 jhāna-elements' sequence, until you will attain Jhana Mastery Of Reflection.

How to notice the Jhana Mastery Of Reflection attainment?
General person use 7 javana-minds arising   per thought and uncountable bhavaṅga arising between thought, but the jhāna-master must use lesser javana-minds and lesser bhavaṅga-minds to take mastery jhāna.
The practitioner attained right, exact  Jhana Mastery Of Reflection, when he can meditate  Jhana Mastery Of Reflection follow above step without any getting struck, such as more than 2 bhavaṅga-minds arising or more than 4-5 javana-minds arising.
Still doubt?
There are many jhāna masters at Pa-Auk Forest Monastery. This is better way, because below quote was written in the path of purification page 94:

So if someone with cankers destroyed is available, that is good. If
  not, then one should take it from a non-returner, a once-returner, a
  stream-enterer, an ordinary man who has obtained jhána, one who knows
  three Piþakas, one who knows two Piþakas, one who knows one Piþaka, in
  descending order [according as available]. If not even one who knows
  one Piþaka is available, then it should be taken from one who is
  familiar with one Collection together with its commentary and one who
  is himself conscientious. For a teacher such as this, who knows the
  texts, guards the heritage, and protects the tradition, will follow
  the teachers’ opinion rather than his own. Hence the Ancient Elders
  said three times, “One who is conscientious will guard it.”

For alternative translation see:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23977/10100
For word definition:

http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_1.htm
http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_2.htm
http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_3.htm
http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_4.htm
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

Thank for your help. Truly appreciate it


text:
Permission of your parents in your renunciation
I have thought about this since a long time, and now I am ready for renunciation, accept teachings and practise Buddhism in a monastery. I told my parents about these future plans. They said they were disappointed in me & that I was running away from my responsibilities & will ruin their and my life if I follow this path.
Since they've made me the person I am today, I feel the need to ask for permission before I leave. They won't allow me.
What would be the best way to solve this, maybe a middle path?

The rule of requiring your parents' permission for ordination, even if you are an adult, comes from this incident:

When King Suddhodana heard that his beloved grandson had become a monk
  he was deeply grieved. The king said, "When you left home it made me
  sad. When Nanda left home my heart ached. I concentrated my love on my
  grandson and again the one I love has left me. Please do not ordain
  anyone without their parent's permission." To this the Buddha agreed
  and never ordained anybody after that without their parents'
  permission.

In any case, most monasteries would not allow you to ordain right away as a monk. See here for the ordination process of the Bodhinyana Monastery near Perth, Australia.
You have to first undertake the eight precepts as an anagarika (a sort of a pre-monk) for some period of time (maybe a year), before undertaking the ten precepts, to become a novice monk (samanera). Then some time later (maybe another year), you may be allowed to ordain as a full monk (bhikkhu). The novice monk and full monk both wear similar robes, while the anagarika usually wears white clothes.
You don't need your parents' permission to become an anagarika and serve in a monastery. You can spend this time to experience a taste of the monastic life, to see if renunciation is what you really want to do, before making a final decision. Maybe you might not like it after experiencing it.
At some point, you would still have to get your parents' permission to ordain. For this, you need to convince them. In any case, you can remain an anagarika for an extended period of time.
I don't think you need your parents' permission to become a novice monk either. But they would probably be unhappy to see you in a novice monk's robes which is almost the same as a full monk's robes.
For more info, read here, here and here.
Another point is, have you decided which tradition to join? Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, Zen etc.? Perhaps, there's more things to consider.

Thank you @Ruben for your response. I am inclined towards Mahayana & Tibetan Buddhism. I am honestly in search of a Monastery that would accept me in. This might although sound naive, I think the basic Buddha's teachings remain the same in all traditions. I remember reading somewhere, when you find the teaching "unacceptable" then you know that the tradition you're following is probably not for you.

You told:

I have thought about this since a long time, and now I am ready for renunciation, accept teachings and practise Buddhism in a monastery.

That is a very praiseworthy way one sees one parents, Sadhu! And a notion of a good sense of gratitude and right view.
Ruben gave some information, which are at large not so wrong. How ever, take always away notions of "I have a right" or "it should be this and that". If it work not now, it will work by time. When your parents get more and more understood your ways, while practicing based on right view where you are, they are more likely to understand.
When it comes to a point where you are no more able to live a householders live, you parents will see that and seeing it, they will ask, beeing asked, is a good place to explain deeper and make things understood.
Since it contains a lot of stories, aside the rules of the Bhikkhus (not someones rights!), it's maybe worthy to give the Mahavagga I an extended read.
Meanwhile, something to rejoice with, take part on merits: a certain person, just few days ago, joyfull shared his mothers now joyful agreement, with his soon going forth. Something really not common in regard of intented to really going forth, not just changing house with monastery, which is often really just a "seek for 'easy' life" and welness.
The case of the Buddhas son, and the grieve of his mother, and the request of Ven. Ananda, which was the reason for the rule not to give going forth, one who has no permission from the parents, was in regard of a Samanera and such as "Anagarika" does not exist within the Dhamma-Vinaya, but is actually also a Samanera (one who asked for going forth under the Buddhas teaching). So not only out of this, it's good to seek a good and proper way, not stubborn and proper to time and facts.
As told, if there are no more ways to live a housholders life, there will be ways anyway. It's possible not wrong at all if spending much and most time avalible in contact with the monks, try to make service and maybe it's possible to get your parents to attend often or part time.
At least, althought maybe not that welcome to hear/read, its always good to speak with good and possible also knowledgeable monks, at first place and if avaliable (which requires to let go of usuall "lazy" ways) in all Dhamma-Vinaya cases, specially in regard of ordination.
There are many personal things, which those could probably handle with, which "in all cases seen from outward"-accounts are not able to serve propably best. One would not easy find someone with real refuge in the Juwels in this spheres, which does on the otherside not mean that ones Nissaya does not have its ways anyway, if walking with pure heart and certain right view, sticking firm to the basics.
Best possible strength, effort and endure for success in regard of path, fruits and the mastering of the holy life, where ever being. Watching after giving good causes. Effects come by themselves, just a matter of crossing the soil for it, sooner or later.

Addition
My person has to add (just translating that part of the Mahavagga), that the Original wish after the rule, that those desire the going forth, need permission, to be faultless ordained by a Bhikkhu, was raised from Buddhas father and the rule does not cover only the acceptance as Bhikkhu, but also all other forms of going into homelessness, going forth (pabbājeyya) under the Buddha: eg. Samaneria and technical Anagarika (who are actually Samanera) as well.
See: Rāhulavatthu - The Case of Rāhula
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

It won't be right if I stay with them, not earning anything and just meditating and doing Vipassana. Therefore I seek a monastery where these are accepted & I'll learn a lot from them too. Thank you for your response. Metta.

Your thinking to get approach to practice Buddhism is remarkable and it's similar to the Buddha who left everything his son,wife,luxury etc.. This is very hard and difficult decision. My suggestion is you better to make them understanding about Buddhism and what is your intention of renunciation and if there is a possibility of arrange residence closer to monastery so you can easily visit them in difficulties. Make them involve with your practices and share it with them and that's good for your parents to gain their morality in late life. This is not against Buddhist teaching as treat and look after parents in their late life as they are weak and helpless. That's also good practice. Wish you all the courage to reach your best potential and wisdom and serve the world with your achievements. Thank you. metta.

Thank you for your response. I tried making them understand the purpose of all this. They simply cannot bear their child giving away everything for a life that they can't really fathom. I don't blame them. They're right in their mind. But, should there be a middle way, I'm more than willing to go with that. PS: I love it when people write metta at the end. It's so peaceful to read.

I suppose it's better for everyone if you persuade them.
There was a sutta, MN 82 in which Ratthapala was denied permission by his parent[s] -- and so he stopped eating, until they changed their mind and consented.
Perhaps that remains a viable (not suicidal) argument, e.g. the article When My Son Became a Monk includes,

I know monks who have refused to eat until their parents agreed to let them ordain

One thing I noted from reading MN 82 was that his action (or demonstration) was a counter-argument to their specific objection (i.e. they told him he was "raised in comfort", implying he was unsuited for the rigours of monastic life); I imagine there are other objections a parent might have, I don't know whether this is the best or only counter-argument for every situation.

If your parents say ,"you have responsibilities" ,it's best to not leave them . Leaving will put a lot of burden over them. You too will remain tensed.
If your parents say ,"No responsibilities ,still We won't allow asceticness " ,then you may try to live as Anagaarik in white robes and come to meet parents every once in a month or so & show them what you have learnt .
But ,when  you are ready & have strong urge to go for deep meditation in forest/hill & with NO Responsibility ,still parents are not ready ... NO ADVICE IN THIS SCENARIO ,cause your mother's or your father's tears might break you down during meditation in cave/forest. Only one thing can be said here that, ' Try to maintain contact with them'... but I know that  during deep meditation there must be no contact with anyone because of Noble-Silence that's why ,NO ADVICE .
If you have responsibilities , you can either talk to in monastery/meditation-center that ," I wanna learn & earn too by serving here as per my  talent/capability ".
 Talking  to a teacher would be best. In this way ,you can support your parents & meditate/learn too. Talk to a teacher of nearest meditation centre/ monastery would be best for you & your parents.
Most important part is that you ,out of every-one , must remain happy & a best learner possible ,whatever the scenario you are facing.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Good is not different from Bad?
In the book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, I read the following statement:

This is the basic teaching of Buddhism. Pleasure is not different from difficulty. Good is not different from bad. Bad is good; good is bad. They are two sides of one coin.

How does this make sense? Does this mean that every good action (for example trying to reduce suffering) is somehow also bad? Or at least destined to fail?

This type of doctrine deprives words of their rightful meaning in a context as that effectively solves the problem of inability to explain words with words by means of simplification and abstration of what is not understood. This i can liken to a child

Anything with the word "Zen", "Buddha", "Buddhism" or even "Mahayana" stuck on it doesn't mean it's that. Like seeing the sight "Apple Store", doesn't mean you walk in but buy the fruit for your snack, right?
@ChrisW. Further, it's worth to note this "Beginner's Mind" is a corrupted term hitch-hiked by the author.

From a Theravada perspective, there is absolute good and absolute bad. The 2 can exist mutually exclusively.
Suffering is absolutely bad and the mind states that lead to suffering are absolutely bad.
Nibbana is absolutely good and the mind states that lead to Nibbana are absolutely good.
There is no suffering in Nibbana and there's no Nibbana in suffering. They arise/exist without requiring the presence of eachother.

So the statement from the book is nonsense? Or just a try to somehow manipulate or confuse the reader? Or what does it mean?

It may make sense in some mundane way, but from the point of view of the four noble truths, it is nonsense.

I wouldn't say its nonsense - it is just prevalent Nagarjuna's influence on Mahayana, that of non-duality and emptiness. The problem with this kind of writing "Good is not different from bad" is  that it is dangerous in not explaining what it conveys. And I have been reading statements like these that don't have explanation way too many times. People should start writing proper books instead of this sort of stuff, so people don't mistakenly think that Buddhism is nihilism etc.

When we are young and naive, we may have a very simplistic, polarized view of Good and Bad. Whoever is on our side, close to us, with us - is good, and whoever is on the other side is bad.
Then as we grow up we start developing a more sophisticated view of the world, in which we try to understand the different sides in every argument. Democrats vs Republican, India vs. Pakistan, Muslim vs Buddhist, Commerce vs Spirituality, Brexit or Stay, and so on - all these different dualities... We try to understand them as well as we can, identify pro's and con's and take the Good side, based on our own values and how their attributes match with our beliefs.
Then as we keep growing and start participating in situations ourselves, we may get into more complex scenarios, when the good may not always be good, and the bad may not always be bad. A drug dealer may use the money to help the poor. Buddha might have hurt his wife and child when he left home to pursue Enlightenment. Wolves hunt on hares - the murder of the hare is tragedy for the hare family, but is a hunting victory for the wolf family. There are all these different situations when good and bad are intermixed, depend on each other, and are two sides of the same coin.
There are however things that are invariaby good, regardless of which interpretative context you're in. In Buddhism traditionally, confusion is always bad, and clarity is always good. Suffering is always bad and peace is always good.
If you think about it a bit more however, you can see that even this may not always be true. Confusion may be saving someone who's not yet ready to know the truth, from getting hit by the reality they wouldn't be able to handle. Suffering may be a price we pay for progress, for growth, for helping others who are not always easy to help. So in Mahayana, even these old polarities of Confusion/Clarity and Suffering/Peace are not as black-and-white anymore. They too are conditional and subject to contextual interpretation.
Clarity that understands and appreciates both Clarity and Confusion, without rejecting either, without mixing them up, is the real Clarity. Being at Peace with Suffering is the real Peace.
Sentient beings have a tendency for reification, they tend to read-in solidity where there is none. "Right view with taints" already understands that clarity and peace are good, but still reifies them, still falsely assumes they can be solid, specific and tangible. "Right view without taints" is just analysis of factors. Now we are arriving at real clarity and peace.
Everything is perfect as is and no one needs saving, and yet, if I can, I'd like to try and help people move towards this peace and clarity - through the path of wisdom and tolerance.

These days, 99.9% of the books, if ever got printed out, are better used for toilet paper than for reading. (So f*** arrogant!! - I take the blame, ok :)
I've never read this book, just "scanning"; the title and what you quoted, what in Wikipedia about the author (I read that page when answering this post). This book useless but will waste my useful time if I read - Will never read.
Good is good, bad bad. Period. Trying to sex up words is clever scheme to induce interest of the reader though. But it harmed the mind, instills extra delusions and hinderances - corrupting the true Buddha Dharma, especially by claiming: "This is the basic teaching of Buddhism."
What truly useful, the wisdom, from real Buddhist teaching, is, "in good there is seed of bad, in bad seed of good." The ordinary can only see the good in good, bad in bad; the wise also the bad in (not "is"!!!) good, good in bad. Like the Chinese Yin-yang diagram Taiji, the black dot in the white, the white in the black - change. I-change (易經: I-Ching, how pre-telling the ancients able to pick the name, encompassing East and West). So, when the stock market swells, the vision it dipped; when bursted, foreseeing the boom. When life at the high, caution, time for downslope; at low, be alert, time for ascending soon; always keep your cool. Then you take the right action, with right attitude. This is what I called usefulness, real wisdom; not sexing-up words.
However, the pinnacle of comprehending, when qualified to utter: "good is bad, bad good, no difference", is when one able to truly dwelling in the state of Emptiness. Another word, Enlightened, Buddha-ed. But then the virtue is, silence. Period.
When one dwelling in Emptiness in real, he is able to transform - transform the physcial phenomena. A Chinese real Mahayana doctrine, "心能轉物, 即同如來" (When your citta/mind can turn the matter, you same as the Buddha), but is not learnt by other culture, yet.

Dwelling in Emptiness thus able to transform - legitimate to utter "good is bad, bad is good":
Mahisasakas Vinaya recounted a very ardent Upāsikā she cut piece of flesh from her leg (market closed) to make soup in urgency for a sick Bhiksu who needed meat as medicine. When the Buddha visited her family she dying, she excused not shown for didn't want to worry him. Yet the Buddha insisted, her husband had to carry her out. Just right at seeing the face of the Buddha, she lapped on her feet, recovered. Her leg and all reverted to as before like nothing happened. This the power of Emptiness the Buddha demonstrated, the meat cut from the leg was no difference from not cut - good is bad, bad good. The Vinaya recounted another, the Buddha himself washed an old sick Bhiksu who spilled his defecations and vomits all-over his body and room; dirty is clean, clean dirty, no difference. If those who uttered that kind of words, get qualified first, please! Else what gives that sitting on the "dharma platform" to teach? Why not a street sweeper also teaching "dharma" but you? Since, street sweeper and "dharma teacher" are, no difference, right?

In this respect, I think one first learning the Theravadin teaching far safer than parroting the Mahayana or Zen one. The Chinese Canon placed Agamas (counterpart to the Pali Nikayas) as the First Section out of the Twelves, means its importance, had to be learnt first. Otherwise fiddling with those Mahayana terms in ambiguous abstruseness can only induce the readers to in$till your pocket/ego and your "dharma Hall ~ of Fame"; but not instilling any real Buddha Dharma to their minds.

Anything with a Buddha s name should not be used for toilet paper... As i see it, if someone was to appropriate it the Buddhas authority it makes him a thief but it does not defile the Name. Idk its just how i see it...

@Inb4dead how did you contrive that "Anything with a Buddha s name should not be used for toilet paper" out from the thin air and related it to my post??? Am I writing in English - let me check... Oh YES, English certified. I can see that you a passionate Theravadin Buddhist, it's ok. Bias doesn't bias the one being biased but the one who has bias - make sense to you, huh? Thanks for commenting :)

might be the and i quote "These days, 99.9% of the books, if ever got printed out, are better used for toilet paper than for reading."
Maybe i misunderstood but it seems as if you said this commenting on a Buddhist book or did you mean books in general, do you think 99.9% of books do not mention the Tathagata?
I am a Buddhist of Theravadin Lineage, proud of it too, your comment "it is ok" could be interperated as deregatory. I hope my perception is off on this one and you refrain from attacks.

@Inb4dead you are over sensitive :)) "it's ok" - just my 'sigh' of getting used to be misunderstood. I have big heart, I refused to define myself in any Buddhist Sect. I don't follow any teacher or sect (unless I come across one real great), my teacher the Buddha and Sutras (since I have my "direct initiation"). But I see people carried away by sexy words, false Dharma/Dhamma - that pained me - but, it's ok (see? live example for this phase). If I scored this post, mine ranked number 1, yours will be #2. I quite like your post in fact, almost an upvote till turned off by your down.

If seeing that certain things are easy misleading, not having real base in Buddhas teaching, especially for Beginners, till Awakening, it's good to throw such simply FAR away, and such to do, reasonable, after probe, althought it might look aversive, is actually good and leads minimum to heavenly states as effect.
If wishing to understand of what the Buddhas way of use of a very needed duality is, to reach the unconditioned, the importance of wise discrimination, not foolish deciding to run away in a pseudo-nonduality, eg simply ignorance, The Road to Nirvana Is Paved with Skillful Intentions and Virtue without Attachment might be good starter.
Watch out how the "no-dual" Zenis will react on the answer, to get the message.
In regard of feelings, it's right that pleasant as well as unpleasant feelings are suffering as well, it's just missed that neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feelings have this as well. Why? Because (the hide in) ignorance is not lasting.
As for deeds by mind, speech and body, there are skillful and unskillful, and yes, skillful often are not pleasing, because burdensome seen, connected with letting go and give.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

How is this an answer to the given question?

Burdensome to read and reflect carefully, or Mr @Witek ? What do you think is good to decide? Or better dwell in "nonduality", ignorance? He will work his way out, if really wishing to get understand the answer.

I appreciate your advice. But I am also interested in your try of an answer. What explanation would you write, if the question came from the Buddha to test your understanding of good, bad and nonduality?

@Witek I think the premise (e.g. "Bad is good; good is bad") is antithetical to the kind of message found in the Pali canon; there are different schools of Buddhism; IMO Samana Johann's answer is likely to be closer to Sankha's; conversely I'd expect Andrei to be more likely to be able to give a Mahayana/Zen kind of answer.

It means that both pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow are part of suffering (dukkha).
Pain causes suffering when you encounter it. Pleasure causes suffering when you lose it or if you're denied it.
From SN56.11:

"The Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha), monks, is this: Birth is
  suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is
  suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation
  from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is
  suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are
  suffering.

This type of statement taken at face value is rightfully said to deprive words of their rightful meaning which effectively solves the problem of inability to explain words with words by means of abstration. IE "apple=orange" as both clearly fruit , but if u asked for an apple and got an orange that model dont work. One could rightfully say "apple=orange" in sense that they are both fruit" but not the generalization. In same way whole doctrines are built on oversimplified models that are based on abstraction. Like a child s drawing of a plane one should not expect it to fly or make sense like engineering plans.
Also to anybody familiar with the actual Discourses of the historical Buddha, it should be obvious that this very much obscures the meaning of the teachings and is definitely not how the doctrine was taught. IE there is a way to say that all reality is suffering but there is a way to delineate what we called suffering into more subsets of experience and even make room for words like happiness and rightfully apply that to what is suffering in a different context/perspective and in the Suttas both contexts and meanings are found and should be discriminated.
This is also why physicists have to differentiate between classical and quantum mechanics. It seems to me that it is also right to say that The Perfect Ones teach the Middle Way as in not teaching the extreme views of both micro and macro perspectives but rather explaining their nature & the connection between them fully, providing a way for wise people to fully know and see and for unwise people to become wise even.
When addressing the issue of explaining words with words, it is stated(interpretation not a quote) that some Elements are to be experienced for knowledge rather than intellectual poundering and reasoning as some things can only be explained, they cannot be described, see MN72.
It is similar to trying to fully express Irrational Numbers like Pi in mathematical language, Circumference is an Abstraction, so is R, therefore it is irrational when expressed mathematicly. Circumference is a word, that can be expressed/translated in mathematical symbols but both type of symbols are an abstraction, one cant derive the "real thing" from abstractions, only get a better model, therefore it is "irrational" because it is not something "real", the engineering plans are not the plane, it would be truly irrational to expect engineering plans to function like the plane.
Similar to how a map is not the territory, label is not the object, name is not the person etc but it is even more deep and profound of a teaching than that.

It is something like this. always there is duality in everything. Black white,good bad,beauty ugly etc. In order to see one instead of another, it should be comparatively high in content. Here good is not different from bad is same concept. If we see something is good we compare it with our old memories. In some point we have seen the same thing in as bad. We feel good now compare to our previous recognition.  So everything has duality. Any action has good and bad side. Its just the way we look at it. Limitation of thinking

After the fireworks,
the spectators departed:
how vast and dark the sky!
(c)

Sounds like fun, but we don't encourage Zen answers here. We tried them about 3 years ago and it did not work for most readers, so we decided to not allow them.

I think we allow 'Zen-style' (short) answers ... but, I think that this isn't an answer and is advice instead.

@ChrisW we allow short answers, if they are good and to the point. But if I remember correctly, there was discussion about riddle-style answers and we concluded they are not very useful on this site.... I think?

Copying your criteria from meta, a short answer is okay if 1) Is not too "mysterious (and often incomprehensible yet seemingly wise)" 2) Addresses the question

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Does sottapana have perfect morality (sila)?
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?

No, just an Arahat has such. But a Streamwinner has what is called "virtue pleasing and praised by the wise". Not capable to make grave faults and lead deliberate misconduct. In affect he/she is still able to conduct unskillful deeds, but would not hide it and leave them covered, would confess them quick, be ashamed and intent to correct.
(You may find the wish after resources, there where you lead the discussion and try to argue on other place.)
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

IMHO introducing the abstraction of "virtues pleasing to Noble Ones" to me seems to be intended to avoid enumeration and getting into explaining how his sila actually works.
In example there is a difference between states that will arise for a lay and monstatic sotapanna, Cula-Sotapanna is different from Normal Sotapanna, Solitary Sotapanna will not have the same Range of Potential experiences compared to a Sotapanna who lives with others, as the sense of respect for the robe or a cultivated sense of shame out of respect for the teacher would be instilled more in the former, a Sotapanna surrounded by the Sangha will lead a different life than a Sotapanna surrounded by Wrong View Ordinary Folk, a Sotapanna with Strong Faculties will make different decisions one with weaker, a combination of these and other factors (latent defilement etc) make one up ones behavior.
In a similar fashion The Aggregates and States of Consciousness which delineate into mental, verbal and physical action are explained in more detail when we look to Abhidhamma and Teachings on the nature of experience and Behavior in general and in Regards to the state of a Sotapanna n particular.
What is impossible is also stated in the Impossible Sutta where the things a Sotapanna cannot do are listed, there is also a list that comes with The Ratana Sutta, Them not killing or wanting others to get killed is from Dhammapada, this is what ive seen in the Canon, Sutta Pitaka and the Abhidhamma.
It is stated in the Sutta Pitaka (Sutta called Recital is at least one instance), where it is stated "Five impossibles, to wit, for an Arahant intentionally to take life, or to take what is not given, so as to amount to theft, or to commit sexual offences, or to lie deliberately, or to spend stored up treasures in worldly enjoyments, as in the days before he left the world."
This was never said about a Sotapanna.
The argument for them being unable to break the 5 precept is based on the verses saying "when a Sotapanna has "eliminated/stilled/calmed(common translations)" the five fearful animosities and easily attains the 4 rupa jhanas then he can be proclaim himself to be a Stream Winner. In those verses it is not said that one becomes a sotapanna when one does not break precepts. It says that "when these have been stilled/eliminated in one (presumably he already is, that is the most face up logical interpretation), it is also not specified if it is dealing with a Sotapanna who knows the Cessation or the Cula-Sotapanna, it seems natural to assume that it means both if anything (but this is a different topic). There is also an ambiguous statement in the Buddhagosa s Visuddhimagga that kind of implies that they can do no wrong action.
Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw was also convinced that a Sotapanna would not break the 5 precepts. Venerable Ladi Sayadaw afaik said he was not sure but leaned towards agreeing with Mahasi Sayadaw.
Ven. Nanavira was raising criticism against the view of Perfect Sila in his time, so it has been criticised for at least some decades and as far as i am concerned the view was never properly defended and is held as orthodoxy by quite a few.
I also have the impression that some Famous Ajahns could be capitalizing on keeping the five precepts and teaching that the Sotapannas dont break the five precepts, because that actually implies that a monastic sotapanna could get involved in some shady stuff outside of the 5 precepts for example and still be perceived as a Saint by layity. It is easier to keep 5 precepts for some people than to become enlightened id assume.
The view i think could also be formed if there was like a Streak of very sober Sotapannas for some time and a view that all Sotapannas are like that couldve formed. These are my thoughts on it fwiw.
A few things other things whch set them apart from Ordinary Folk are that they can do wrong action knowing it as bad with right view and cant do wrong action and hold wrong view about it, they can restrain themselves on account of Right View, there is no such possibility for an ordnary person. So rather than speculating about what they cant do one should focus on that view thing that they got imho.

Since a Sotapanna does not have perfect mindfulness & wisdom, it is impossible a Sotapanna has perfect morality. However, a Sotapanna has intimate deep insight into the nature of craving & attachment, therefore a Sotapanna fully abides by the precepts via wisdom but may occasionally lapse in relation to trifling deeds, such as killing a mosquito or lacking perfect speech suitable for each situation.

Voted down because is refuted by Dhammapada: According to the story of hunters wife when questioned on the matter of her Sila the Blessed One is said to have said that (from imperfect memory) "Sotapannas do not kill or wish beings to die".
Other than that i agree

The story of the hunter is not from the Dhammapada. You need to distinguish between the Dhammapada and the ridiculous commentaries that were written hundreds of years later. The hunter story is a commentary rather than a teaching of the Buddha.

I see your point, however i dont hold the view that they are wrong or true. Not a big fan of Buddhagosa in general tho.

I see your point, however i dont hold the view that they are wrong or true.  There is a good chance that it is more or less true tho, maybe it was said, in referrence to what exactly and to what extent is still unclear so one can not do much with it.

buddha summed in jaggikāvasathasutta, which you require (but still no translated version in enlish, why?):

sujātā ānanda upāsikā    kālakatā    tiṇṇaṃ    saññojanānaṃ   parikkhayā   sotāpannā avinipātadhammā niyatā sambodhiparāyanā.
Ānanda,  dead Sujātā-upāsikā already ceased 3 saṃyojana (sakkāya-diṭṭhi, vicikicchā, sīla-bataparāmāsa), she is sotāpanna, would not fall from sotāpanna state, and is sure of enlightenment (higher level) in the future.

The translation trick:
Pāli translation (by saṃyojana context's sequence) of first 3 saṃyojana that are destroyed by sotāpanna should be:

Micchādiṭṭhi causes vicikicchā and sīlabataparāmāsa.

The explanation:
Misunderstanding the  relativity (causes and effects) causes doubting the relativity and causes doing wrong physical verbal&bodily actions (kāya&vacī-viññatti-cittajarūpa) that cause low-quality resultant-minds&kammaja-rūpa, such as hell realm, etc.
The  relativity in buddhism is paṭiccasamuppāda (the  dependent origination). Micchādiṭṭhi is in every passion step (avijjā, taṇhā, upādāna) of paṭiccasamuppāda, see the reference sutta the the end of this answer.
The example:
While a child who can do multiplication and addition but he understand only the additive rule of the mathematics. When he receive problem test sheet "3+3x3" and he misunderstood "I can do", then he write the wrong answer "18" because he wrongly thought '(3+3)x3' but it must be '3+(3x3)'. He may doubt "should I multiply  first or add first?". In the end, the teacher gave him fail for that answer.
You can see that whole misunderstood, wrong answer, wrongly thought, doubt, and fail come from Misunderstanding the  relativity.
The reference:
In samanupassanāsutta showed avijjā-upādāna  co-nascently cause (sahajāta-paccaya) diṭṭhi-upādāna (diṭṭhupādāna, sīlabatupādāna, attavādupādāna), taṇhā, vedanā, phassa, etc. So, this sutta showed micchādiṭṭhi is in every passion step of paṭiccasamuppāda (the dependent origination):

(sakkāya-diṭṭhi-upādāna:)‘Intentions from self, or an intending self, or in self intentions, or in intentions self.’ Reflect.
...
The ordinary person touched (phassa) by ignorance (avijjā-upādāna) and feeling (vedanā) in accordance, it occurs to him ‘I be (by bhava-taṇhā)’, or ‘This is my (by upādāna) self (maybe by attavāda),’ or ‘I will be,’ or ‘I will not be (by vibhava-taṇhā),’ or ‘I will be material,’ or ‘I will be immaterial,’ or ‘I will be perceptive,’ or ‘I will be not perceptive (saññā),’ or ‘I will be neither perceptive nor non-perceptive.’
(Above quote paragraph included diṭṭhupādāna, sīlabatupādāna, and attavādupādāna automatically, because of previous quote which appear before this quote in the same sutta. So buddha use "the ordinary person" instead of "ariyasāvako". But in the other paṭiccasamuppāda sutta maybe not auto include those 3 upādāna, because the buddha may taught to sotāpanna-ariyasāvaka, or above, who perfectly and completely ceased those 3 upādāna.)

So, you can see whole dhamma which I quoted above in 1st-3rd pañcaverabhayasutta:

I

The householder Anāthapiṇḍika (sotāpanna) approached the Blessed One, worshipped and sat on a side.

...

“Householder, when the five dreadful fears are appeased and if you are endowed with the four factors of one who has entered the stream (sotāpanna) of the Teaching and if you wisely see and penetrate the right path, if you desire, could declare, ‘I have destroyed births in hells, in animal wombs, in the sphere of ghosts and birth in loss, evil states and in decrease. I have entered the stream of the Teaching, would not fall from there and am sure of enlightenment (higher level) in the future.’

...

“Householder, a destroyer of living things is in fear of having destroyed living things in this life and he dreads and fears the next and experiences mental unpleasantness and displeasure. Someone abstaining from destroying living things is appeased from this dread and fear.

... one who has taken the not given ... one misbehaving sexually ... one telling lies ... one taking intoxicating drink... (5 sīla)
II

“Here householder, the noble disciple has unwavering faith in the Blessed One ... the Blessed One’s Teaching ... The disciple monks ... perfect virtues desired by the noble ones... (vicikiccha-saṃyojana cessation)

III
... the noble disciple wisely considers this same depandent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda)...

“Such as on account of ignorance arise determinations...

So, buddha summed in jaggikāvasathasutta, which you require (but still no translated version in enlish, why?):

sujātā ānanda upāsikā    kālakatā    tiṇṇaṃ    saññojanānaṃ   parikkhayā   sotāpannā avinipātadhammā niyatā sambodhiparāyanā.
Ānanda,  dead Sujātā-upāsikā already ceased 3 saṃyojana (sakkāya-diṭṭhi, vicikicchā, sīla-bataparāmāsa), she is sotāpanna, would not fall from sotāpanna state, and is sure of enlightenment (higher level) in the future.

it is good that you found that one, it is certainly very important as it is consistent with Nandiya and the Uposattha Sutta where The Perfect in Knowledge and Behavior seemingly tells Ariya Savakas to keep the basic Precepts.
By any chance do you have a better a than publicly available english translation of the Seven Suns Discourse by any chance?

Also they will say Anathapindika was not Ariyan when this discourse was given is my guess. This is what they do, explaining away things by commentary even if it runs contrary to logic, Abhidhamma and bunch of Discourses.

@Inb4dead You can see in the path of purification, RECOLLECTION OF PAST LIVES, around page 408. It is not the same sutta. But it is about 7 sun, too. I am not sure for the quality of this translation because my english is terrible. But it can be a choice for you. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

2/3. Also, I knew that someone so bias toward commentary, because they never read commentary directly. So, we should give them chance to understand the commentary.

3/3. Another, for about Anathapindika: I understand your regards. However, Sotāpanna state of anāthapiṇṭika was already specified in sutta. When buddha often use "ariyasāvaka" in the context of variant sutta  with someone. It means that one is ariya. Because buddha specify that ariya to practice himself continue from his ariya's current state. The westerner can't understand this pāli word relativity, so they fabricate stories "it not appeared in tipitaka", although it appeared clearly.

It is correct that a stream-winner will not not break the five precepts. On the other hand, that is not one and the same as perfect morality.
As an example, from Mahasi Sayadaw's Manual of Insight:

Out of the ten "wrongs," wrong view, false speech, wrong action and
  wrong livelihood are abandoned by the first path. Wrong thought,
  slanderous speech and harash speech are abandoned by the third path.


text:
Decoupling happiness from state of the world: Useful? Against human nature?
I'm currently reading the book "Happiness - a guide to developing life's most important skill" by Matthieu Ricard (my first real contact with buddhism/buddhist philosophy). I found the argument he makes in the beginning of the book rather interesting - that we draw "happiness" from the physical state of the world, e.g. a dinner in a fine restaurant, spending quality time with friends, etc., but that this happiness also vanishes as soon as the life situation changes - the dinner is at some point over, the friends have to leave, ..., and our happiness level decreases. Instead, he proposes to pursue happiness from within, irrespective of our current situation (as well as by helping others).
While I find this thought intriguing, as he tells tales of concentration camp survivors or people being tortured that are nevertheless light-hearted and seemingly happy despite great calamities in their life, the more I think about it the more I doubt the practicality of this approach. As per Kant, the maxim of your actions must be generalizable into the basis of a new set of laws (sorry for the bad translation here) - but I feel like human lust for short-term pleasure has advanced mankind in incredible ways throughout human history. We want to go somewhere far, but we are lazy, so we invented cars and planes to take us there without any effort in a fraction of the time it would take us to walk. We want to eat delicious meals, so we advanced the art of cooking, we want to be in contact with our family and friends, so we invented the phone and other media, the list goes on and on.
My question is: Is it really desirable to completely erase this natural laziness and "hedonic treadmill" that makes humans pursue money and fame? Of course there are also bad sides to technology or extreme egoism, but I'm not convinced this calls for a complete erasure of this "primal urge".
The book is of course written from a (presumably) Tibetan perspective, my insight into the different schools of thought is very limited, apologies if this is not the right place.

"We want to eat delicious meals, so we advanced the art of cooking." Maybe person A wanted delicious meals and person B considered he could make some money by making delicious meals for person A.

I doubt if that's real Buddha Dharma. It's better to study the Sutra/Sutta than  to learn 2nd handedly.

This is a very well known sentiment in Buddhist circles. The canonical metaphor for this is "leather shoes" -- you can't cover all earth in leather but you can cover your feet.
There are certainly two paths, and you're right that the path of least resistance in following our greed for ease and comfort has brought us to all these great inventions. The question is, are we psychologically more satisfied than we were in old times? The quality of life has improved without doubt, but do we feel better? (and do we feel better specifically due to that, or could there be something else going on hand in hand)
It would be a truism to say that lovers are happy in hovel and that the rich also cry. These days people in affected ethnic neighborhoods probably enjoy higher basic living standards than the elite in medieval times. Do they feel happier?
In Buddhism, happiness/suffering depends on a match between "is" and "should", or your perception of the situation on one hand and your expectations on the other. If the two mismatch, one will feel unhappy no matter how good the situation is, objectively. In other words, Buddhism defines happiness as a mental/emotional state conditional on one's values ("attachments").
So the Buddhist way of making "the leather shoes" for the mind, is to learn to transcend any fixed idea of the world, as well as any fixed set of expectations, and learn to dive into the spontaneity of life as is, with infinite openness and no sense of conflict. This is subjectively experienced as acceptance (aka love) of oneself and the world, or the perfect ease and spontaneity. This stateless state of having no ego, no fixed position, and therefore no suffering, is what we call Nirvana, and the Christians call unity with God.
Is it desirable to have entire population of Earth to get into this state of spontaneous freedom and what would happen to society and the very civilization? Until I experienced it first-hand I used to think that civilization would die out from the lack of activity. Now I have all reasons to believe that once the mind lets go of its conceptual boundaries, it gets to see that the nature of reality is not as fixed as we used to believe. So, in my opinion, when we are all free, instead of dying out the civilization will enter a phase of increased playfulness and creativity. Instead of being victims in our collective nightmares, we will be dreaming our own dreams, collectively and individually. I want to be around when that happens.

A canonical explanation for why Buddhism is necessary or desirable is told in the story of the four messengers (see here or here).
My paraphrase of the story is that Siddhārtha Gautama was born a prince; it was prophesied that he'd become a Buddha or a World-Ruler; his father preferred the latter and so tried to keep the existence of "suffering" a secret frm the young prince, who lived secluded in a luxurious palace. Eventually the prince went outside and discovered that the world includes sickness, old age, and death; and, either poverty, or the life of a monk (or both, depending on how the story is told).
Anyway on discovering this the prince was something like, "how can I be happy when everything is impermanent, everyone is going to die, etc.?"
So he set off (literally, i.e. he left the palace and his family) to discover the antidote to (the escape or liberation from) suffering and so on; and eventually discovered enlightenment or became enlightened, including how to teach that, and for the rest of his life he taught people Buddhism so that they could be liberated too.
Anyway, Buddhism as taught in the Pali canon includes doctrine that you cannot expect permanently satisfying feelings from sensual perceptions, therefore it's unwise or ignoble to seek sensual pleasure, that it's better to have Right View and so on, and pursue the Threefold Training.
Maybe Buddhism would say that this is not against human nature but is against animal nature: i.e. pursuing wisdom and morality and concentration is something that a human can and should do, that an animal typically can't and doesn't; and that a human who doesn't is not unlike an animal.
Also I think the "hedonic treadmill" you mentioned might be more-or-less analogous to "samsara".

Also I think that Buddhism expects that there will be lay people (lay society) and monks. Everyone needs various basic "necessities": especially food and medicine, maybe clothing and shelter -- not to mention intangible and social goods like education etc. Lay people are expected to engage in some form of livelihood, to everyone's benefit (their own, their family's, their teachers', their employees and employers). One of the Buddhist ideals is a "Middle Way" between sheer hedonism and consumerism on the one hand, and asceticism and starvation and so on on the other.

Chris’s answer maybe alludes to this, but I want to highlight why the question you are asking is tangential to the teaching of the Buddha.
The primary aim of the Buddha’s teaching is not inventions, technological progress, comforts, certain social structures one might consider preferable etc.  It is the end of suffering, a goal that, he taught is independent of these things.
Second, whether something is natural is not relevant. What is relevant is whether it contributes to an increase or decrease of suffering. Something being natural doesn’t even mean it’s good.  All our defilements are natural.  In fact, it is taught by the Buddha to view these arisings as mere nature (not to impute “my” onto them). Much of our animal nature points us to acts that would not be considered wholesome by the wise.  The Teaching encourages us to understand nature as it is and act wisely in accordance with that understanding, not to act out whatever urge naturally pops up in our mind.  Whether to phrase it as animal nature vs. human nature or as the animal nature of humans is a matter of choosing words.
This point was beautifully summarized in a little booklet by Lama Yeshe I read years ago.  I can’t recall its title now, but there was a small section in it that was titled “Don’t be yourself” and that was the message of the section, that you can do better than that.
Please note that nature and evolution optimized us for survival and procreation. They did not endow us with tools to not suffer.  The latter is the territory of the Teaching and is the reason why a Buddha had to arise and teach us. In fact, much of our stress is from primal reactions bestowed on us by nature for the two goals it cares about. The Teaching actually doesn’t care to understand origins and evolution and how we got to be endowed with all the urges and reactions we naturally have. Just to understand that they are present, know them exactly as they are and skillfully use this knowledge to relieve the suffering.


text:
What happen before the Devil King of the Sixth Heaven create Samsara?
What i want to ask is what is the life before the Devil King of the Sixth Heaven create Samsara (know as wheel-of-life,cycle-of-birth) and law of causation

Mara does not create Samsara. Where did you get that from?

Yes he is he the one tried to prevent buddha to become buddha and he also the one who create Samsara

No he does not create Samsara.

is this buddhism question? or based on some book?

This is an understandable confusion of 2 mythical concepts:
[Samsara] is the wheel of rebirth, divided into 6 realms:

Niraya (hell)
Preta (hungry ghosts)
Tiryak (animals )
Manushya (humans)
Asura (demi-gods)
Devas (deities)

The Six Heavens of the World of Desire are 6 places between earth and the Brahma heaven:

Chatur-maharaja-kayika (Heaven of the 4 heavenly kings)
Trayatrimsha (Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods)
Yama Heaven
Tushita (Heaven of Contentment)
Nirmanarati (Heaven of Enjoying the Conjured)
Paranirmita-vasha-vartin (Heaven of Freely Enjoying Things Conjured by Others)

The “Heaven of the Devil King” (Māra  in Sanskrit) resides in Paranirmita-vasha-vartin. Māra enjoys making free use of the desires of others to manipulate and control others according to their own will. The founder of the Nichiren lineage wrote:

This world is the province of the Devil of the Sixth Heaven.  All of
  its people have been his karmic associates since time without
  beginning

Since manipulating someone's desire will have karmic consequences, this can be associated with Samsara, but the Devil King did not create Samsara, nor is it recorded who is assumed to have created the Six Heavens.

Beings, Samsara rolls on driven by craving and ignorance. A beginning point can not be traced... If wishing to use a synonym, Mara, for this very "craving and ignorance", inwardly, outwardly, it, the Buddhas state on the issue "begining", should fit for a clear answer.
[Note: this here is not meant for any trade, exchange, stakes... what ever purpose of gains for the world. If not given to give in such way, it might be proper to be deleted]


text:
Existence of Absolute time
Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time ...
According to Newton, absolute time exists independently of any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe. Unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time was imperceptible and could only be understood mathematically. According to Newton, humans are only capable of perceiving relative time, which is a measurement of perceivable objects in motion (like the Moon or Sun). From these movements, we infer the passage of time.
After analyze above text by Isaac Newton and state; The "Absolute time" is just a concept rooted from "Anatta"(impermanence) the one of three characteristic of nature in Buddhist teaching. Anatta is everlasting process without end or start and is very helpful to eliminate the wrong view of "creation". So this is one vital explanation that Buddhism ahead of scientific theories. So if I say the fabricated absolute time concept not genuine and the declaration of "Anatta" is the fact and genuine invention,is it acceptable?

there is no time - time is illusion, so  there is no movement. what is time? time must compose of past-present-future. but apart from the present, the past and future are our mind-concept - doesn't exist in reality. ...its' too deep for general to understand.

I think most of this question is off-topic (Newtonian Physics), and to the extent that it is on-topic (i.e. about Buddhism) it's perhaps a duplicate, i.e. there's already a general topic about Time and Buddhism.

Clocks are constantly calibrated and are not 100% certain because of thngs like the superposition of quantum particles in what is used to measure time, classical mechanics do no apply at those scales. There is variation in what is used to measure time, planets and even pulsars are not 100% stable and predictable, anything that has entropy is not absolute reality.


text:
is it possible to send merit for a future action ?
is it possible to send merit for a future action ?
may the merit i do  donating the 100$ - help this old lady cross the street etc  go to X person ?
what about may the merit i do today go to X
what about the merit i do tomorrow go to X

Your giving are your merits, it's not possible to share ones merits in such way as thought. Even if giving the money direct to the lady to get a taxi to cross the street, the merits are yours. Taking (a gift) will be a debt, sometimes a debt torward Nibbana, torward those pulling in that direction, but mostly a debt binding to the world, and those after it.
But if the old lady, sees your deeds of sacrify, is able to rejoice with it, to take mentaly part on good deeds, then she has a share on you merits, and it's solvely up to her to take on the opportunity to take parts on your merits.
You good deeds will follow, as well as bad, there is no need to worry about that. Just a matter of crossing the right soil to ripe.
See more in regard of sharing merits and dedication:

[Q&A] Transfering merits - Can one transfer the merits from ordination?
How can merit be transferred?

Invitations like:

"may the merit i do go to X"

Are your merits. If those who are dedicated are worthy of gifts, even very benefical gifts and wishes.
Anumodana, sharing of merits, is a way to fight ones stingyness and very seldom praticed by "modern Buddhist" since incapable to overcome stingyness. Only a person with firm confidence and those who have overcome maccariya (stinginess), e.g. noble ones, are really able to let others always take part on their good deeds. Many are thoses being slaves of envy of all kinds.
Places and people lacking in deeds of generosity and sharing merits, not used to mudita, for one after a better, should avoid such places, seek for association where such of doing and dedicating merits is practiced, jet hard to find in your grasped world, out of cause.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

In thailand, we often use the conversation such as:

(1) I will go to do dāna tomorrow. Do you want to joy the plan? (merit-collaborator).
(2) I will go to do merit tomorrow. You can satisfy with my plan (anumodanāmaya-puññakiriyāvatthu).

Number (2) can use for sending to the deceased, too.


text:
Reborn in heaven and perfect sila/morality
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?

No. A person does not need to have perfect morality to be reborn in a heavenly realm. The quote below should be self-explanatory.
From MN 136:

"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. And
  that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappeared in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But since he
  has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he will feel the
  result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some
  subsequent existence.

If not wishing to fall into bad destinations afterwards again, yes.
It's like if asking, "Can a thief or murder spend some times like in heaven, on the beach?", sure it might, but how long would his pleasure last?
Therefore the wise recomment in this ways, ways of similies:

An Upside-down Basin
Once we've abandoned doing evil, then even when we make merit only a bit at a time, there's still hope that our perfections will grow full. Like a basin set upright out in the open: Even if rain falls only a drop at a time, there's a chance that the basin will get full.
But if we make merit without abandoning evil, it's like putting a basin upside-down out in the open. When the rain falls it still lands on the bottom of the basin, but on the outside bottom, not on the inside. There's no way the water will fill the basin.

And it's not out of reason that real generosity is actually counted as a quality just possessed by virtuous and wise.
Leaving the realms of the Devas, they will encourage, so hear their calls:

The devas, knowing from this that 'This deva-son is about to pass away,' encourage him with three sayings: 'Go from here, honorable sir, to a good destination. Having gone to a good destination, gain the gain that is good to gain. Having gained the gain that is good to gain, become well-established.'"
Iti 83

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for use of commercial purposes and other wordily gains by trade and exchange, but intended and bound to good destiny, awakening and liberation, and so good if shared likewise.]


text:
What could a lay follower do to increase his zeal to become a monk?
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.

What makes you think mid thirties makes you too old for monkhood?

It's said that Ayya Khema ordained as a bhikkhunī when she was aprox. 55 years old.

Age is in no way a limit (aside of to young). When such skillful intent arise, don't wait. Circumstances change. Even this very day could be the last of an auspicious life. Easy can it happen to fall into a sickness or lost a glimb in an accident, make hindering deeds, fall into debt, war, famine... or chance ones mind and be caught, no more really able to walk the holly life in it's full.
Aging, sickness and death, suffering, unavoidable to escape where one might be, are the reason to seek for coming out, and it's not a matter of age, which is just a point on the wheel.
As the Buddha told, having not amassed wealth in the youth, not even renounce in the age, such is truly a wasted life. Now it might be clear how perfect a time of skillful intent is.
There is no loose in leaving those not seeing and those just talk behind.
Take this The Goad-stick and walk on young man! There are countless not capable, even if they would wish.
DN 2: Samaññaphala Sutta — The Fruits of the Contemplative Life
Look forward, never turn back and walk, step by step. The Devas will opend the doors on the way, for one holly in his intent for a real zeal.
Metta & Mudita
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

I could easily have written your query. At this time however there are a few differences which may be helpful if shared.
Am in my mid 40’s. Never thought that it was actually possible. Met a Venerable at the local Vihara who stated otherwise and has taken me under his wing so to speak with ordination to be the outcome. Yes, it’s a long road, lots to learn. But if it’s truly in your heart, it will be. Make yourself visible and learn as much as you can from as many as are willing to share. Have you decided upon a school of thought? So much to consider.
Please forgive for giving what equates to being advice, but the same is also my personal experience. Hope this is helpful in some small way.
All the best to you.

I think that If you train at home eventually you will gradually become content with less and will come to see the drawbacks of home life. Longing for freedom from home life will arise. I think that is the best way.
One could be going forth on conviction too, then just need conviction i guess:) One such as this will have easier time convincing one self to go back to home life without support in general i think.

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.

The above is merely an interpretation of Buddhism. 'Samsara' does not necessarily mean cycling in past & futures lives, as described in SN 22.99, which says:

Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
  ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
  regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
He assumes feeling to be the self...
He assumes perception to be the self...
He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
  that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
  from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
  from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
  from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
  set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
SN 22.99

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?

Mid-thirty is not old. The Buddha attained enlightenment at 35 years old & some of his new disciples who became enlightened were older than him.

I have vowed to follow all precepts stated for the lay followed

This is not something special. People of another religions follow similar precepts & vows.

however, I don't want to feel comfortable in the worldly life and I want to maintain my zeal to become a monk

The ideal step to discovering if the life of a monk is suitable for you is to live a in meditation monastery as a meditating layman for about 12 months.

if not now may be in the next life.

Ideas about the 'next life' is for the purpose of making laypeople moral. If you wish to overcome suffering & attain enlightenment, Buddhism teaches the mind must realise the impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) & not-self (anatta) of life. In summary, higher Buddhism is about giving up ideas life is "I", "me", "mine" & "self". This starts with reaslising life is impermanent.

While this discourse was being spoken, there arose in the
  Venerable Kondañña the dust-free, stainless vision of the Dhamma:
  “Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation".
1st sermon of the Buddha

Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?
Unsatisfactory, O Lord.
Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it
  proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?
Indeed, not that, O Lord.
2nd sermon of the Buddha


text:
Pushing onself too much?
Is there a thing of pushing oneself too much to practice and doing too much which will cause someone to quit take a break for some time ?  what about too little ?
how you determine the middle way here ?

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.

and how to enjoy it i have no idea  - i dont enjoy meditation not the 1 minute ones i do and not the 2 hour ones  ...  it goes between hard and not fun to  tolerable and ok  but not really move to the area of enjoyable really

@breath Meditation is not ot be enjoyed per se, as it is not its purpose in first place. Meditation is training (of Sati). But mindful life is very much enjoyable, and such insight that gives enjoyment is trained typically through meditation. It is hard work that makes you live happier in the end, learning how to notice and let go of things and therefore feel free, blissfully.

If you don't have a teacher, you will need to be your own judge. If you cannot be your own judge, you will need to find a teacher.
Suzuki in Zen Mind Beginner's Mind warns about going too quickly. He recommends something like one hour per week meditation for beginners.

If you feel bored or tired with one type of practice (e.g. meditation) or feel like you're just spinning the wheels and going nowhere, remember that that the Noble Eightfold Path consists of 8 factors, in three major areas - development of wisdom, development of mind and development of virtue. You can always focus on the other factors, to find renewed motivation.
You can take a break from meditation sometimes to read up or learn the Dhamma, to cultivate Right View, which is the forerunner of the entire path.

Right view is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the
  other factors. It enables us to understand our starting point, our
  destination, and the successive landmarks to pass as practice
  advances. To attempt to engage in the practice without a foundation of
  right view is to risk getting lost in the futility of undirected
  movement. Doing so might be compared to wanting to drive someplace
  without consulting a roadmap or listening to the suggestions of an
  experienced driver. One might get into the car and start to drive, but
  rather than approaching closer to one's destination, one is more
  likely to move farther away from it. To arrive at the desired place
  one has to have some idea of its general direction and of the roads
  leading to it. Analogous considerations apply to the practice of the
  path, which takes place in a framework of understanding established by
  right view.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Does Buddhism have an answer to disturbing sexual fantasies?
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.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

Yes, Buddhism has answers. These disorders happen when people don't know how to manage their own energy. See my answer here on details of energy management: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24598/43

Ways of Denourishing of Sensual Desire.
Asubha reflextion, refextion on the ugly of the body behind skin, hair, nails, reflecting the backwards of sensuality.
Watching the dogs on the street...
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

More complete method is here: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.127.than.html

Why the downvote? While this may not be YOUR favorite way of addressing the matter, is was recommended by the Buddha and has been used by many for ages.

@Gotamist. 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. Regards

@Dhammadhatu I see.  So it was a criticism of "asubha alone". Thanks for the link!

Buddhism only teaches about suffering & freedom from suffering (MN 22). Buddhism teaches: "There is no fire like lust" (Dhp 202), which is a natural law.

One excited by lust, overcome by lust, with mind obsessed by it, intends for his own affliction, for the affliction of others or for the affliction of both, and he experiences mental suffering and dejection.
AN 3.54

I can only recommend to research the suffering of both male & female sex & pornography workers & the growth of women on antidepressants, in order to learn how such extreme sexual behaviours bring the growth of suffering & the reduction in pleasure.

Jenna Jameson...has been called the world's most famous adult entertainment performer and "The Queen of Porn"... Jameson would make
requests for drugs... the pills of choice were Xanax, Ambien and
Suboxone along with alcohol... Jameson gave birth to twin boys... Jameson and Ortiz split up ... Ortiz was granted full custody of the twins...
Wikipedia

In summary, a solution to cure these sexual disorders is to see clearly they are disorders that bring suffering rather than activities that bring sustainable happiness.

Suppose a dog, overcome with weakness & hunger, were to come across a slaughterhouse, and there a dexterous butcher or butcher's apprentice
were to fling him a chain of bones — thoroughly scraped, without any
flesh, smeared with blood. What do you think: Would the dog, gnawing
on that chain of bones — thoroughly scraped, without any flesh,
smeared with blood — appease its weakness & hunger?
No, lord. And why is that? Because the chain of bones is thoroughly scraped, without any flesh, & smeared with blood. The dog would get
nothing but its share of weariness & vexation.
In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a chain of
bones, of much stress, much despair & greater drawbacks.'
More metaphors here: Potaliya Sutta

Buddhism teaches to relate to other people with kindness & compassion, including sexual partners. Most women want to have children, similar to the porn queen Jemma Jameson. The more sexual partners a women has, let alone the more engaging in extreme forms of sex, generally, the more diminished their capacity to be good or normal mothers will be.

Patikulamanasikara is the meditation recommended to the person defeated by lust.
Whenever you see people or think about people(including yourself), meditate on them in terms of those body parts until the perception of a person goes away and all you see is contemptible body parts.

Does Buddhism have a solution to cure these sexual disorders?

I would recommend watching the video; "Ask A Monk: Pornography and Masturbation (and Addiction in General)" by Ven. Yuttadhammo.
He gives an in-depth and detailed teaching on exactly this topic both from a theoretical perspective and a practical, insight meditational, perspective.
A step-by-step guide on how to deal with these defilements is provided in the video.
May this be of use to you.