>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)

If I remember correctly, there is a text where the Buddha called a monk "janitor" for being devoted to cleaning. It's probably in the Dhammapada commentary, but I am not sure. Two monks ordained. One spent his time practicing whereas the other was cleaning a lot and criticizing the meditator.

I read the following on the internet: > Ucchedavāda is the view that there is no afterlife; or specifically that there is no rebirth (and by association no karma). While Buddhaghosa's commentary to DN 1 asserts the above, which was later corrected by Dhammapala's secondary commentary, where in the Suttas is this idea found? Exactly where did the Buddha say ucchedavāda is the view there is no afterlife?

"When the iron bird flies and horses run on wheels, the dharma will come to the land of the red faces" is a quote from ~700AD that is too good to check. It is also the title of a reasonably good documentary about Tibetan Buddhism in the US. Google already said that the "iron bird" is actually the name of a year. What is the surrounding context of this quote?

What is this text called Path to Freedom? Is it the Visuddhimagga? What does it really say about mudita? What is real definition of mudita according to the Pali Canon and its traditional commentaries? From the essay Mudita is not “sympathetic joy” , authored by Bodhipaksa : > The third of the Brahmaviharas, after lovingkindness and compassion, > is *mudita*. *Mudita* is usually translated as sympathetic or empathetic > joy, and is described as “feeling happy because others are happy.” > > This is an interpretation I profoundly disagree with. > > A first century text called the Path to Freedom describes the > cultivation of mudita like this: > > > When one sees or hears that some person’s qualities are esteemed by > > others, and that he is at peace and is joyful, one thinks thus: > > “Sadhu! Sadhu! May he continue joyful for a long time!” > > (Sādhu, by the way, means something like “Yay!” or “Alright!” or > “Great!”) > > The records we have of the Buddha’s teachings don’t define mudita, and > the text above is the earliest I know of that gives us an indication > of what *mudita* is and how it’s to be cultivated. There are several > things that are significant here. > > - We’re asked to call to mind someone whose skillful qualities are developed to the point where others esteem them. Having *mudita* > involves recognizing what’s skillful. > - We’re not just being asked to call to mind someone who is happy, but someone who is happy (and at peace) *as a result of having those > skillful qualities*. So when we have *mudita* we see the connection > between skillful actions and their beneficial results. > - Appreciation is involved. We appreciate skillful qualities, and the peace and joy they bring, as being good things. > - Love is involved. Because we want what is good for them, we encourage this person’s future joy and happiness, by supporting, > rejoicing in, and encouraging their skillfulness. > - By valuing this other person’s skillfulness, and the peace and joy that come from it, we ourselves become joyful. So we’re cultivating a > state of appreciation that’s joyful. > > This all goes far, far beyond “being happy because someone is happy.” > That much more mundane experience is actually fraught with spiritual > difficulties, because a lot of the apparent happiness we see around us > arises on the basis of unskillful actions. We shouldn’t be glad that > someone is happy because they’ve just defrauded an old lady of her > life savings, for example. > > In summary, when we practice mudita we appreciate skillful attributes, > speech, and actions, and this brings joy. And so *mudita* is “joyful > appreciation.”

The wikipedia page for [Buddhist Cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#Origins) has a section titled "Origins" in which the following sentence occurs: >No single sūtra sets out the entire structure of the universe, but in several sūtras the Buddha describes other worlds and states of being, and other sūtras describe the origin and destruction of the universe. I am interested in reading these sūtras, in which the Buddha describes other worlds and states of being, but I am not sure what they are. Does anyone know what sūtras the author of the article is referring to?

(Not sure if i should break this down into two questions. Let me know if that's better.) 1. Is Gautama Buddha the originator of the idea of skandhas? 2. The suttas provides multiple accounts of the skandhas characteristics, and their foundational role in dukkha (For instance SN 22.86 ). But does the suttas provide a rationale for the taxonomy into these five particular skandhas? (To clarify, i'm not asking what the skandhas are, or how they function). In other words: *why* rupa, vedana, sanna, sankharas and vinnana? Are the reasons detailed in any sutta? Or should this question be deemed acinteyya?

I remember reading offhand on a website a Zen Buddhist Koan that had not worrying as its theme, and one of the lines was "if you're about to go to Hell, don't worry". That's all I can remember of it. If anyone of you knows what I'm talking about, please share the name and text of this Koan. Thank you in advance.

As the title says, I am looking for sources from EBT or Theravada, from the actual words of the Buddha about the process of death. Including advice on what one should do when death is close. Assuming the person knows death is arriving imminently. (if that is a correct term)

> 'Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.' I'm not sure I like the adjective 'optional' because I think it's insensitive to tell someone who's been injured that their suffering is some switch to easily flip (I don't have an issue with the nouns). I think 'not' is better than 'optional'. Anyhoo, many Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT) texts seem to distinguish pain and suffering in other ways such as: - Psychology Today: The Dialectic of Pain: Synthesizing Acceptance and Change > Pain in life is inevitable, but suffering and misery are not. These can result from the way we respond to pain. The more we fight against it, the more likely we are to experience negative emotions, such as anger, hopelessness, and despair, and the harder it becomes to identify changes that can help. Like those Chinese finger-trap toys, the more forcefully we tug to release our index fingers, the more tightly ensnared they become. Calming down and taking stock of the situation opens the means to escape. - Wikipedia: Marsha M. Linehan (this quote has no source as of this writing) > Marsha M. Linehan (born May 5, 1943) is an American psychologist and author. She is the creator of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), a type of psychotherapy that combines behavioral science with Buddhist concepts like acceptance and mindfulness. - And so on.

Pramana refers to sources of knowledge in Indian epistemology. The wikipedia article on Pramana states: > Buddhism holds two (perception, inference) are valid means ... to knowledge. This sutta supports Pratyakṣa or perception: > “And what, bhikkhus, is The All? The eye and forms, the ear and > sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and > tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called The > All. > > “If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I > shall make known another all’—that would be a mere empty boast on his > part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, > further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, > bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain.” > SN 35.23 Are there examples in the suttas where the Buddha, or his Arahant teacher disciples like Sariputta, used Anumāna or inference? Please provide them. Let's say, when you wake up from sleep and go outside your house to observe the ground to be wet everywhere, but it's currently not raining. So based on this observation, you can infer that it must have very recently rained. Is there any truth of the suttas that is not observed directly by perception but rather inferred from indirect evidence? Another example is evolution. We cannot observe that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. However, we can infer that indirectly from fossil evidence. This is obtaining knowledge from inference. There can be other examples, like how the ancients inferred that Earth must be spherical from the way shadows fell on the ground differently in different cities at the same time.

On several occasions I have encountered the term "red boddhicitta" in scholarly literature on Indian tantra, but am having trouble locating the Sanskrit term for this concept. I tried googling रक्त बोधिचित्त but nothing comes up; then again, I don't reckon google is indexing Sanskrit all that carefully. I'm not very familiar with the primary sources at the moment, but I gather there are Sanskrit texts that may mention red boddhicitta. I seem to recall one piece known as the Nectar Tantras but I couldn't find a text or translation of it.

Question

Are there any Sanskrit sources that explicitly used the term "red boddhicitta"? (any text from Indian tantra tradition would be sufficient)

What does a Buddhist practitioner, based on the 8 fold path, and deepening practice contemplate to become a sotāpanna (a stream-enterer)?

I have seen some people doubting the reliability of the Tripitaka. They say it is not the Buddha’s word, since it was written down about 400 years after his death. What historical evidence can prove the **level** of reliability of the Tripitaka?

We can give examples of how things can continue without any permanent entity, like fire burning wood. It is not the wood, the fire, the space, or the floor that is fixed — everything is changing. But how can anyone demonstrate how karma, habits, and memories follow us? Where are they stored, if they are stored at all? If they are stored, are they unchanging? Did the Buddha give examples of where these habits or karma “stay” and follow us? I don’t see any examples for this. Can anyone describe it? This is something most people struggle with, and people from other religions often question. If there isn’t any solid explanation or way to demonstrate it, then it seems to undermine the idea.

I read that the Buddha said this: Whatever your personal experience tells you is helpful, is more important than the Buddha's teachings. Did he really say that, and if so where?

Is there a tradition within Buddhism of praying in an easterly direction? If there is what is the oldest known reference to it. Sorry for the simplicity of the question, but I am not a Buddhist.

If I remember rightly the Buddha is quoted as saying something along the lines of: > Do not believe anything I say until you can prove it by yourself In what text(s) of the Buddhist cannon is this quoted?

Is there any record of the longest period the historical Buddha stayed in meditation? I have heard rumors ranging from many days to many weeks. Also when? Prior to his first sermon or after?

I've come across many stories in the Tipitaka where people attained arahanthood or became non-returners through meditation. However, I cannot recollect any instance where someone becomes a sotapanna through a meditation practice (including vipassana). Can someone provide me a reference for such an instance (or multiple instances) from suttas, commentaries or any other source in the Pali canon (ideally excluding Visuddhimagga)? The reason why I'm asking this is that there's a claim by certain lineages that stream entry cannot be reached through meditation, at least based on Tipitaka evidence.