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?

**Here is my main question #1** What is the difference between sutta defn. of Brahmacariya and 1) brahmin Brahmacariya predating Buddhism and 2) celibacy and chastity? defn.: celibacy the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations. What is the difference between celibacy and abstinence? Although many people use “celibacy” and “abstinence” interchangeably, there is a difference between the two terms. Abstinence usually refers to the decision not to have penetrative sex. ... Celibacy is a vow to remain abstinent over an extended period of time. defn.: chastity the state or practice of refraining from extramarital, or especially from all, sexual intercourse. What is an example of chastity? The definition of chastity is a quality held by someone pure, modest or celibate. A virgin is an example of chastity. Faithful married couples are examples of chastity. ... The boy's friends laughed at him when he took a chastity pledge and promised to not have sex. Note that ‘brahmacariya’ goes much farther than ordinary defn. of ‘chastity’ and ‘celibacy’ **Here is my main question #2** Not even having a thought of lust is the EBT definition of brahmacariya, avoiding sex and any kind of physical or mental sexual activity. Ordinary defintions of ‘celibacy’ and ‘chastity’ tend to use physical activity to determine status. EBT buddhism focuses on the mental causes that can preempt physical manifestations of lust, kāma 💘💃‍. (sutta refs?) I think there's a sutta (or two) in AN that answers both questions, where the Buddha criticizes Brahmans of his time not living up to brahmacariya. PED definition: : Brahmacariya (neuter) [brahma + cariya] a term (not in the strictly Buddhist sense) for observance of vows of holiness, particularly of chastity: good and moral living (brahmaṃ cariyaṃ brahmāṇaṃ vā cariyaṃ = brahmacariyaṃ Pj I 151); especially in Buddhist sense the moral life, holy life, religious life, as way to end suffering, Vin I 12, 19, renouncing the world, study of the Dhamma D I 84, 155; II 106; III 122f., 211; M I 77, 147, 193, 205, 426, 463, 492, 514; II 38; III 36, 116; S I 38, 43, 87, 105, 154, 209; II 24, 29, 120, 219, 278, 284 (°pariyosāna); III 83, 189; IV 51, 104, 110, 126, 136f., 163, 253, V 7f., 15f., 26f., 54f., 233, 262, 272, 352; A I 50, 168, 225; II 26, 44, 185; III 250, 346; IV 311; V 18, 71, 136; Snp 267, 274 (vas-uttama), 566, 655, 1128; Thag 1027, 1079; It 28, 48, 78, 111; Dhp 155, 156, 312; Ja III 396; IV 52; Pv II 913; Dhp-a IV 42 (vasuttamaṃ); Vibh-a 504. — brahmacariyaṃ vussati to live the religious life A I 115 (cf. °ṃ vusitaṃ in formula under Arahant II A); °assa kevalin wholly given up to a good life A I 162; °ṃ santānetuṃ to continue the good life A III 90; Dhp-a I 119; komāra° the religious training of a well-bred youth A III 224; Snp 289. — abrahmacariya unchastity, an immoral life, sinful living M I 514; D I 4; Snp 396; Pj I 26;

In the words of Buddha, the world in which we are living is generated as the following: > From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. > From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. > From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form... And, additionally, the following loop is also expounded: > "From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From > consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form..." The full understanding (awakening) of this knowledge is given through the eight jhanas (particularly the last four Arupa Jhanas;) which relates to what was said precedingly as follows: From the complete transcending of each following states, the bhikku enters & remains in the dimension of: - Infinite space - Infinite consciousness - Nothingness, then at last - Neither-Perception-Nor-Nonperception. My question will be about the last two. What are they exactly, the Sphere of Nothingness and the Sphere of Neither-Perception-Nor-Nonperception? How can they be transcended, and what for?

I would like a clarification regarding the terms Yoniso Manasikāra and Sammā sati with Sampajaññā. Is the meaning of these two: 1. the same, 2. totally different, 3. somewhat similar with certain differences, or, 4. are they used in different situations with contextual differences in meaning?

I had noticed something that seemed to me a contradiction. I would be grateful if someone could resolve for me this contradiction . To attain the state of pari-nirvana you need to liberate yourself from the lie of being a separate part of the universe, then the pari-nirvana through this prism seems to be an egoistic thing since you exit yourself from the samsara but you leave the other existences in samsara.Which seem the epitome of egoism But the bodhisattva return to the world for helping the other existences which seem more altruistic and by this way more close to pari-nirvana. Therefore we get that going to pari-nirvana is in a certain sense a contradiction with being liberated from the lies ... I hope I am being clear... Thanks in advance !

The Fourier transform describes how to transform between cyclic and non cyclic. Did Nāgārjuna describe this already several centuries before Fourier as described in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19-20 ? A full translation to western terms is >25:19–20 >न संसारस्य निर्वाणात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं >na saṁsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ >There is nothing whatsoever of the cyclic distinguishing (it) from the non cyclic. >ननिर्वाणस्य संसारात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं। १९ >na nirvāṇasya saṁsārāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ| 19 >There is nothing whatsoever of the non cyclic distinguishing it from the cyclic. निर्वाणस्य च या कोटिः।कोटिः। संसरणस्य च >nirvāṇasya ca yā koṭiḥ koṭiḥ saṁsaraṇasya ca >(That?) is the limit which is the limit of the non cyclic and the limit of the cyclic; >न तयोर् अन्तरं किंचित् सुसूक्ष्मम् अपि विद्यते। २० >na tayor antaraṁ kiñcit susūkśmam api vidyate| 20 >Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them.

**Namo Buddhaya** In the sutta of Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor SN 42.2 The Buddha, to the demand of the actor presenting his wrong view wishing to know what Lord Buddha thought of, answers > Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that. And then proceeds, after the third demand of the actor, on presenting why his beliefs were wrong views. I thus wonder, why wouldn't the Buddha wish to show the way to someone clearly mired in wrong view the right path to practice at his first request ? Why would he ask him not to ask him again ? Especially considering that the actor actually goes and takes refuge for life after his understanding of his wrong views. With metta.