I lost my father when I was a kid. Can I be reborn with the same father? I didn't know him well, as I was very young, but from people's words, he was a great man, and I'm dying to know him, to love and to feel him, and I'm dying that he can't take me down the aisle and watch me grow. Can I be with him again and fulfill my dream? Growing up and not having a father has caused me to have tons of troubles and complexes. What was this punishment for? Sometimes I think God didn't like me and I was too cruel in my life.

SN 12.35 says: > “Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “Bhikkhu, whether one > says, ‘What now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there this > aging-and-death?’ or whether one says, ‘Aging-and-death is one thing, > the one for whom there is this aging-and-death is another’—both these > assertions are identical in meaning; they differ only in the phrasing. Why are the following two statements identical in meaning: 1. What now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there this aging-and-death?’ 2. ‘Aging-and-death is one thing, the one for whom there is this aging-and-death is another’

Mindfulness requires being non judgemental, but what should one do when the work requires judgement where a standard needs maintained? Is there a form of objective judgement that that can be used like non judgment? I realize it's rather paradoxical but it seems analogous to that an apriori standard could be met without judgement? Or perhaps I am crazy.

I am following a guy online who claims to be enlightened. Everything about him is fine and he seems genuine and all but for one reason that he says he has no recollection of his past lives. Is this possible? Also, on similar lines, if one gets enlightened will he have access to whatever information he wants. Not an all-knowing one, but just that which he needs or wills.

Some months back I had written a comment (*not able to find it atm*) to a post in BSE which resonated with the following explanation of Enlightenment by Osho, that ' *Enlightenment is consciousness conscious of itself* '. But it was not taken well. The following is taken from his book, The Last Testament. I am very much in tune with this particular explanation and my practice also more or less depends on this. I just want to know is this accepted by any branch of Buddhism, whether Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana. > First, watch your actions of the body. > > Second, watch your actions of the mind: thoughts, imaginations. > > Third, watch your actions of the heart: feelings, love, hate, moods, sadness, happiness. > And if you can succeed in watching all these three, and as your witnessing grows deeper and deeper, a moment comes that there is only witnessing but nothing to witness. > > The mind is empty, the heart is empty, the body is relaxed. **In that moment happens something like a quantum leap. Your whole witnessing jumps upon itself. It witnesses itself, because there is nothing else to witness. And this is the revolution which I call enlightenment, self-realization.** Or you can give it any name, but this is the ultimate experience of bliss. You cannot go beyond it. ****Please no personal attacks on Osho, I consider him as a genuine enlightened master.***

I have seen some suttas where the Buddha addressed Rahula. Are there suttas which explicitly state that Rahula was the Buddha's son, or does this come from the commentary?

Say one dwells somewhere, somehow, enjoys or feeds on certain hospitality, at which occasion, at which point, it would be proper to leave and no more return? So what's the time? Is time running out? Koan-cracks also welcome!

Based on a real situation, I have come across some people who claim to be Sotapanna and Sakadaagaami.. When i have gotten angry or upset about something they said or did, i was told i am committing Aarya Upavaada. This is nothing to do with Dhamma but personal issues such as relationships and finances. I am told if i get angry or upset with them, i am still committing Aarya Upavaada as the people involved are Aarya. With Sutta references, could someone tell me if this is indeed Aarya Upavaada and what actually constitutes Aarya Upavaada?

Would there be a conflict if I were to practice meditation from various schools? For instance mahasi insight meditation, Tibetan Samantha meditation, as long as the skills are kept separate?

Shall I be reborn as a girl again? I've had a rough life, gotten a CVA (Cerebrovascular Accident) recently, and am now half-paralyzed. I feel tired of living. I guess God forgot me, given all this suffering that I've faced during this horrible life.

If one reads [this quote by a monk](https://ninjastream.to/download/n9JZrxK8gAG72/atid-370-uncensored-mp4) , who is referring to [donations to SuttaCentral](https://suttacentral.net/donations?lang=en) : >...For the past week or so, we’ve been actually losing money on Stripe: paying more in settlement fees than we get in donations. - What should one assume in regard of observing Vinaya while letting people believe to act in preserving a noble tradition? *This seems to be referring to asking people to donate money, to preserve a noble tradition (i.e. the scriptures published by SuttaCentral) -- but can they be doing this and observing Vinaya?* - Maybe some can quote some related texts to money and relation issues from open resources on the matter to try to catch bite the tail (don't forget to donate...). What faults can come into play? What's required to make with things attained wrongly? What can be assumed when Bhikkhus share food and success, trade together with lay people? *To answer this question, perhaps quote from available from resources, on issues such as money and relationships. Are these faults? Is this an example of Bhikkhus sharing food, and success, and trading commercially with lay people?*

Why do we close a question about trying to find out if I’m disrespecting The Buddha, I learned I should not look at my altar when I’m angry or disappointed. see I’m so angry right now I don’t think I can look at my altar. I just wanted to know. And then you guess closed my question. It wasn’t offensive, in any way. I was clear, I think ,I just deleted the message after I tried to please you. I just wanted to know know if I’m disrespecting The Buddha.

Is there a reference text for the theravada tradition that contains a lists of concepts for quick reference? Such as a text that allows for reference of ideas found in the pali canon when reading, like the 5 aggregates, various lists from the abhidamma, four foundations of mindfulness, fundamentals to advance stuff,etc.. I know this stuff should be committed to memory and not just referenced when coming across in a text but that takes time so until then I am looking for a good physical resource since I don't want to use tech because I find it a hinderence to mindfulness and I am a recovery tech addict.

Dharma is usually donation-ware. There is a really valuable dharma book that my friend is in no financial condition to buy (it is $100) but he also does not want to download it for free from me. Is there any sutta which clearly states that dharma is donation-ware and that it is OK to redistribute dharma content even if it is copywritten?

Christianity says sin is when someone does something bad. In Buddhism, people are reincarnated for karmic reasons, but they say this without reference to sin causing bad karma. Does sin preclude karma? What is the difference then between sin and karma (or what ever that causes bad karma)?

SN 12.35 says: > “Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “Bhikkhu, whether one > says, ‘What now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there this > aging-and-death?’ or whether one says, ‘Aging-and-death is one thing, > the one for whom there is this aging-and-death is another’—both these > assertions are identical in meaning; they differ only in the phrasing. > If there is the view, ‘The soul and the body are the same,’ there is > no living of the holy life; and if there is the view, ‘The soul is one > thing, the body is another,’ there is no living of the holy life. > Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata > teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With birth as condition, > aging-and-death. ’ Why is there no living the holy life when there is the view, ‘*The soul and the body are the same*,’ and if there is the view, ‘*The soul is one thing, the body is another*’?

Do Buddhist teachings or scripture say anywhere whether or not a reincarnated soul has memory of their past lives? Referenced passages are encouraged.

SN 12.35 is translated by Bhikkhus Sujato, Bodhi & Thanissaro as follows: >Mendicant, if you have the view that the **soul** and the body are the same thing, there is no living of the spiritual life. > >Taṁ **jīvaṁ** taṁ sarīranti vā, bhikkhu, diṭṭhiyā sati brahmacariyavāso na hoti. > >If you have the view that the **soul** and the body are different things, there is no living of the spiritual life. > >Aññaṁ **jīvaṁ** aññaṁ sarīranti vā, bhikkhu, diṭṭhiyā sati brahmacariyavāso na hoti. Is there an explanation why the translation of "soul" is used here for "jiva"?

Regarding reincarnation, I have a few questions: 1. Unfortunately, because of a big mistake and peoples' interference, I lost the love of my life to another woman almost 30 years ago, but still love him deeply. He's moved on. But I am stuck and can't stop thinking about him every single day of my life. Can I be finally united with him in my next life? 2. Will my parents be the same in my next life? 3. I don't like to study too much in this life. Can I be what I dream of being in my next life? I would love to be a doctor, to be part of *Médecins sans frontièrs* and cure people for free, but in this life I didn't succeed in doing so, as my IQ was not perfect in many fields of study. I appreciate your answer. -Farah

If reincarnation were true, in that a soul takes on different human bodies across several different lives during that soul's existence, have philosophers, theologists, scholars or any scriptures ever indicated whether one of those lives is the true identity of that soul? Or is it implicitly always assumed that the first life or incarnation of that soul is its true identity?