>Once upon a time there was a beggar who wanted to sit in the Buddha's seat in a temple. The Buddha agreed, with one requirement: keep silence. > >At first, a rich man went to the temple to ask for virtue. When the rich man went out, his wallet felt out without his notice. The beggar was about to call him back, but remembering his requirement he kept silence. > >Then a poor man went in and ask for a better life. When bowing he saw the rich man's wallet, and thought that the Buddha gave this to him. The beggar was about to call him back, but remembering his requirement he kept silence. > >Then a fisherman went in and ask for a good journey in the sea, because the sea was so violent (large waves, strong wind). Suddenly the rich man returned to find his wallet. Seeing only the fisherman, he thought it's him who stole his wallet and hit him. This time the beggar couldn't hold back and explain the whole story. > >Then the Buddha returned and told the beggar that had he kept silence, then the rich man had learnt his virtue lesson, the poor man had had a better life, and the fisherman's life had been rescued because he would stay home otherwise. > >The lesson here is that we just need to keep observe and not influence our wants and needs. Do you know what story is this? Which would be its origin? Source: [Chuyện kẻ lang thang muốn đổi chỗ ngồi với Bồ Tát](https://nguoiphattu.com/thu-vien/tho-truyen-sach/8608-chuyen-ke-lang-thang-muon-doi-cho-ngoi-voi-bo-tat.html "Chuyện kẻ lang thang muốn đổi chỗ ngồi với Bồ Tát | Người Phật Tử - nguoiphattu.com - Phật giáo Việt Nam") (Vietnamese)

What would you say are the basic requirements to become a Vipassana teacher? I don't necessarily refer to attainments. More to basic knowledge and skills. What I can think of would be for instance: - knowledge of the 5 precepts; - knowledge of the 4 noble truths; - knowledge of the 8-fold path; - be able to listen. (Just to name a few.)

Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God? If yes, how? Do all beings intuitively know what is right and what is wrong deep within their consciousness? Even the worst psychopaths? Resources: - https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Is_morality_objective%3F - https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

According to the ten fetters model, one of the five fetters which are only removed at attaining arahantship is ignorance (avijja). This means that anagamis are still subject to ignorance in some way. But it's also evident that anagamis possess a lot less ignorance than ordinary people. For example, belief in a self (sakkaya-ditthi) is abandoned at the first stage of enlightenment. So which forms of ignorance would an anagami still experience, and which forms not? Or is ignorance something that only sometimes arises in an anagami, the same way ill-will is only sometimes present in ordinary people? Thanks in advance for your answers!

I'm looking for Buddhist therapists for a friend of mine (who is also a practicing Buddhist). He's been using traditional therapists and it has not worked for him Is there a list of Buddhist therapists available anywhere online?

If yes, what would happen if someone would travel back in time to prevent other person's birth?

According to Tibetan Buddhism, what does it mean LHA? (LHA body?)

Most of our thoughts are caused by desire. So, what are the thoughts of a person who has no desire? Another way of asking the same question: if we remove desire based thoughts, what will remain? Edit: I'm asking this because I want to experience enlightenment. I know I am not enlightened, but If I am enlightened, how would my thoughts be? How would I feel it through awareness?

Which biography of the Buddha is written in (or translated into) English, and is the most widely read (from a Theravada perspective)?

What is the difference between Buddhism, Hinduism and Solipsism? Do all these religions say that other people have no minds? If all these religions are like solipsism, then are all buddhists solipsists?

In a discussion about suffering with my brother that got heated he said, "Buddhism can't end suffering any more than Christianity or Islam, it's a great sales pitch though. Formula to religion: life is bad, but we can end suffering in some distant end goal that no one can ever actually achieve." I'm a not very well studied or practiced, so I didn't know exactly how to respond and it's shaking my worldview.

One topic that confuses me is that of rebirth, and how individuality may relate to it. I've heard/read that the buddhist concept of rebirth is different than the popular concept of reincarnation, though I haven't found a clear explanation of the difference. One metaphor that I've seem more than once is that of the flame in a candle, that can be transmitted to another candle, the idea being that of a certain continuity. However, I think that poses a challenge to the idea of individuality. For instance, a flame may be transmitted to another candle, and still exist simultaneously in the first candle. The equivalent in terms of human life would be some content of the mind of Joe being somehow transmitted to another person (or multiple individuals) while still existing in the mind of Joe (that is, during his lifetime). Also, a flame can be formed from 2 or more sources, for instance, we might use match and a lighter to light a single candle. Conversely, one candle can transmit its flame to several other candles or objects. In terms of humans, that would be like the contents of the mind, or the karma, of Joe, being transmitted to Peter, Mary and Jeff after Joe's death. In that case, if Joe's karma is a mix of good/bad actions, presumably some of his "heirs" could get a good or bad portion of the karma by sheer luck. Also, we might imagine that the karma, or the contents of the minds of three different people, Peter, Mary and Jeff, combine after their deaths and then "land" on a newborn baby, Joe. In that case, If, say, Jeff was a really bad person, but Mary and Peter were really good, then Joe might receive a good "inheritance", and, in that sense, Jeff's bad karma would have been "diluted" by those of Mary and Peter. What I'm getting at here is that, the way the candle metaphor is presented, it seems to be incompatible with the idea of individuality. On the other hand, if we think that the karma of Joe will be transferred to some individual being or entity or person after Joe's death, and that Joe's present conditions are affected by the karma of only a single being in the past (as opposed to being the amalgamation of 2 or more karmas), then in this case individuality is preserved. But in that case, how does the concept of rebirth differs or is incompatible with the popular concepts of reincarnation and soul? If Joe's karma gets transmitted after his death to Jeff, and after Jeff's death his karma gets transmitted to Mary, etc, isn't that tantamount to the idea of a soul? I think some people might object and say that the soul is like a "thing" that has infinite existence, while in the buddhist view there's a constant change, and constant creation of karma. But, to use another metaphor, wouldn't that be like comparing a tree, from the seed stage to a full grown tree? We might say that the full tree is not really the sapling, and the sapling is not the seed it once was, and that is true in one sense, but in another sense, the tree is still the same "being" as the seed. One seed will not generate 2 or more trees, and 2 or more seeds will not combine to form a single tree. Regardless of the definition of "continuity" that we choose, there's clearly a sense of individuality. Where does buddhism stand on that?

Genjokoan says > Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression > complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call > winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring. Dogen says here that spring is not after winter, but there is still "before" and "after", which is included in spring, and spring is independent of them. etc. ---------- If not the beginning of spring, what is before spring? Not winter. ---------- And if - likewise - the end of life is discontinuous with the present, does that mean life does not end when I only exist in the present?

If a meditation teacher is not enlightened, is there any point in learning from him/her? According to [Satipatthana Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html) , the awakening should usually take some time between 7 days and 7 years. If somebody who devoted his life to teaching meditation still hasn't got enlightened, there must be something wrong with his method, then? Or am I missing something? The question is general, but to give some context: I have been to a meditation retreat using S.N. Goenka's method, and what I learnt seems to have some merits. But if I assumed a Buddhist point of view that the awakening is the ultimate goal, there is no reason to follow his advice, since Goenka has stated that he is not enlightened. Is there any point in using his techniques?

I've quoted below from Ratana Sutta (The Discourse on the Jewels). >Ye ariyasaccāni vibhāvayanti Gambhīrapaññena sudesitāni Kiñcāpi te honti bhusappamattā Na te bhavam atthamam ādiyanti Idam pi sanghe ratanam panītam Etena saccena suvatthi hotu ~ Cited from: Ratana Sutta (Pāli Text) which means; >Those who clearly distinguish the noble truths, which have been well preached by the one with great wisdom, no matter how great they become in heedlessness still they do not take up an eighth existence— this excellent treasure is in the Sangha: by virtue of this truth may there be safety! ~ Cited from: Ratana Sutta | The Discourse on the Treasures According to the above, stream-enterer will not have an eighth existence (re-appearing) no matter how great he/she become in heedlessness. Does it mean that a stream-enterer will become an Arahant within his/her next seven existences even without any effort? If so, why would someone put an extra effort to become an Arahant after becoming a stream-enterer?

Isn't everything in this world equal in value? Can we say that the value of a human being is greater than the dust?

Subject refers, this is refer to URL below where question already closed https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39586/buddhism-supernatural-feats-and-abilities This is some sharing with a question. Hope it will help some science development in finding the truth. I only experienced 2 or 3 times out of it for the Supernatural feats that feel so real and close as explained for 3rd Eye or so called Quantum Entanglement in Pseudo Science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV7qC7qua1k I have a long thought about how I did to have this during that time, I have a short temporary state of perfectionist or Buddhism 6 Paramita as below which I believe to have this super ability when a person achieves enlightenment. Or in other words, my mind just had fooled myself, fully focused and believed to have all the below but for a very short moment. For the poker game winning as mentioned in the previous link indeed I had donated all to the temple and I had this thinking while winning the game . I knew what Teacher taught me to use in gambling was wrong.  1. Dāna pāramitā (दान पारमिता): generosity, giving of oneself (in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, 布施波羅蜜; in Tibetan, སྦྱིན་པ sbyin-pa) 2. Śīla pāramitā (शील पारमिता): virtue, morality, discipline, proper conduct (持戒波羅蜜; ཚུལ་ཁྲིམས tshul-khrims) 3. Kṣānti pāramitā (क्षांति पारमिता): patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance (忍辱波羅蜜; བཟོད་པ bzod-pa) 4. Vīrya pāramitā (वीर्य पारमिता): energy, diligence, vigor, effort (精進波羅蜜; བརྩོན་འགྲུས brtson-’grus) 5. Dhyāna pāramitā (ध्यान पारमिता): one-pointed concentration, contemplation (禪定波羅蜜, བསམ་གཏན bsam-gtan) 6. Prajñā pāramitā (प्रज्ञा पारमिता): wisdom, insight (般若波羅蜜; ཤེས་རབ shes-rab) Ques: Please someone validate the technique above can have some temporary Supernatural feats or Quantum Entanglement. If yes, then experience can be done during a Poker game for a person like Doctor Stuart Hameroff or whatever to simulate the scenario.  Well, I wish to go back to the human world and focus on the Noble Eightfold Path instead of the phenomena and let the Doctor handle this quantum world. If the information above is valid and the Doctor has faith, then he will find it. 

Is Buddhism methodological solipsism? Is Buddhism similar to methodological solipsism, or is it something completely different?

How is the mind matter process described and explained according to the Buddhist teachings? How does it related to Cognitive Psychology? How is the next moment created from the current? What is the mechanism behind it? How does this process sustain its self? What are the variation with regard to this if any?

Ever since I was a child I was very look concious. I took pride from my looks and took shame from them as well. I'm at a point where my sense of worth is mainly derived from such an unstable, diminishing and limited resource and this inconsistency is causing me a lot of suffering. How to lose identification with my body?