I know the title seems like a contradiction. The focus of Buddhism is the dissolution of the self and impermanence. Well, I am taking a class on Buddhist art and we recently read the Tsukumogami Ki (Record of the Tsukumogami). It mentions an esoteric Buddhist patriarch called Nagabodhi (Jp: Ryuchi Daishi, 龍智大士) taking an elixir of immortality so he could be alive long enough (800 years) to pass his teachings on to two future priests of the Shingon sect. It also mentions a certain Kudonsen (瞿曇仙) who was supposedly an immortal wizard in India. That sounds like a Japanese transliteration to me. I haven't been able to find very much information on both men regarding their life in India and their immortality. Can someone help me find good English material about them, as well as provide examples of other so-called Buddhist immortals? Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief Chinese Google search suggests that 瞿曇仙 is "Gautama". There seems to be masses of scriptural references, both ancient and more modern texts, mentioning the name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise a Chinese Google search for 龍智大士 turns up a lot of material. "大士" is an honorific. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for 龍智, do these help? [1], [2], and [3]. Oda Mari (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously read the majority of what has been presented. Most of the material just says Nagabodhi was the student of so and so and passed on a particular form of esoteric Buddhism. I have found one book that mentions him receiving a siddhi for extending his life, but there has to be more on the subject. I guess the Japanese version of the original Indian tale was colored with Taoism since the "siddhi" became an "elixir." I would like to at least date when he supposedly flourished (that is if he was historical). I read about the Gautama connection to Kudonsen after my original post. It has to be referring to someone else besides Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha. I know it is a common given name. Thanks to all of those who have responded so far. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Nagabodhi's master Nagarjuna states he lived during the 3rd century CE, so I guess that is a start to dating the historical Nagabodhi. This is the book I was referring to which talks about him receiving the siddhi for immortality. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A now-living example of a Buddhist immortal is Tenzin Gyatso born Lhamo Dondrup who is believed by Tibetan buddhists to be the latest reincarnation of a series of spiritual leaders titled Dalai Lama who have chosen to be reborn in order to enlighten others. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the concepts of immortality and reincarnation Cuddlyable3. According to Buddhist beliefs, all living things re-incarnate until they achieve enlightenment. The Dalai Lama, the Panchen Lama, everyone else in China, all the animals in the world - all reincarnate, according to Buddhism. It just so happens that, because the chief Lamas are regarded as important spiritual beings, their reincarnates are actively sought out and venerated. Immortals do not reincarnate. They, by definition, do not die. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could find the cheapest prepaid phones for $15 in the US nowadays. I wonder how cheap they'd be in Africa. In any case, how fast are user numbers growing, and how are they using these phones to pull out of poverty? How fast is their economies growing thanks to these phones? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the ways that cell phones help poorer countries is that governments do not have to invest as much in infrastructure to provide connectivity. A cell phone tower provides connectivity to many thousands of people at a fraction of the capital cost that laying wire lines would, and (for example) can provide that connectivity to people living in remote areas where getting a land line in would be rediculously hard. For the consumer, the costs may be identical between a landline phone and a cell phone; but if there is no land line to plug your phone into, it is useless. Its one of the reasons why cell phone usage rates are actually higher in the developing world than in the developed world; in many of those places land lines were never laid or were of substandard quality; those countries can literally skip that technology. In the developed world the existing landlines means that people are not forced to change to cell phones if they do not want to... --Jayron32 12:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microfinance institutitions like the Grameen Bank often fund people in developing countries like India and the Philippines to buy a cellular phone. Sometimes the phones people buy are reconditioned phones bought second-hand from people in the developed world (in the UK companies like Mizuma Mobile do that). Relative to people's income the phones are very expensive, but they buy them not for their personal use but as a business venture. A while ago I heard a BBC World Service documentary about microfinance for mobiles in the developing world. One phone was bought by a collective of small farmers in a village in Africa. They sold their product (I forget what - let's say goats) in town (two days walk away). Sometimes there was a shortage of goats in the town, and they'd get a good price, and sometimes a surplus, and they'd get a bad price. If they drove their goats into town and the price was bad, it wasn't economic for them to drive them home, or to sit around until the price improved. Sometimes they sold to a middleman, but he took a bunch of the profit. With the mobile they could phone into town and check the market, and they'd only drive goats into town if it looked like the prices were okay. For them that made for big improvements to their income, and paid for the phone (and was, more macroeconomically, beneficial for the country, as it made the goat-supply-chain more efficient). Similarly the programme talked about "mobile phone ladies" in the Philippines. One lady walked between several villages over the course of a week. If a villager wanted to talk to a relative in the city or overseas, they could rent the phone from her for a few minutes. I think she also took incoming messages (for which she'd also charge a fee). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles here[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Alansplodge (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It takes money to make money, but both big or small investments could land you in a far better, self-sufficient situation in life than you’re in now if you’re homeless. Therefore, how should one invest 1¢, 5¢, 10¢, 25¢, 50¢, $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $200, $500, $1000 to get back on their feet? What could it buy and how could that purchase lead you to regained self-sufficiency?

(Please answer what you can for each point. Thanks.) --70.179.169.115 (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited your question to take up less space. A person can comment on each denomination without putting it under 15 different sub-headings. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I do not think each and every one of these points will engender enough separate discussion to warrant 14 separate sections. The reason for this — and the same reason that the number of categories to consider is fallacious — is because the marginal utility of most of these categories is the same, therefore most are redundant. From a practical standpoint, I would collapse all values from $.01 to $10 into one category. This also has practical benefit — it's relatively easy to beg or borrow up to that amount in one afternoon, so considering a "less than $10" category makes more sense than trying to consider the difference between $.10 and $.25 (because the answer in both cases is likely to be the same — go out on the street and beg for quarters). I don't have data, but my gut feeling is that the difference between $10 and $20 is a bit steeper — obviously you could do the same thing two days in a row, but you're going to incur, say, food costs in between then, making it not quite linear. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we just answer the same question a few days ago? In any case... for amounts over $200, I would suggest "investing" in some new clothing... to wear at job interviews. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is defintely get yourself cleaned up with the money and go to interviews to get a job. If you can't even get a job for yourself, and therefore remain homeless, I won't want to do any business with you. So having understood the "finer intricacies" is not helping you if you smell, because to do any business, you need to meet people, so you can't be smelly and expect success at those meetings. --Lgriot (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't generalize... Not all homeless people smell (in fact, not smelling is very important to most homeless people). The point being made is that when you apply for a job, you want to present a neat and tidy appearance... you want to look professional (which will be different depending on the job you are seeking). Homeless people may not have been able to afford to keep up their wardrobe (their meager resources going to more important things like food). Their clothing may have become frayed, faded, ripped etc., and frayed/faded/ripped clothing will not impress a potential employer. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, if you are not presentable already, making yourself presentable would be the first priority for investment, and that would probably take at least $50 for a trip to a thrift store for used clothes, a drug store for toothpaste, toothbrush, and soap, and perhaps a fee for the YMCA to use their shower. The next step would be to get a job, probably doing day labor, that would generate enough income for you to establish an address (preferably by renting a room, but at least to rent a mailbox if you are going to stay for now at a homeless shelter) and to set up a cheap cell phone account. The reason is that most jobs other than day labor require an address and a phone number. Your next step would be to get a job that pays better than day labor, preferably a job that pays enough for you to rent a room where you can get your life together. Your next step would be to get a job that teaches you about the business in which you want to exercise your entrepreneurial skills. The reason for this is that it is not enough to have entrepreneurial skills. You also need to know something about the specific business in which you want to exercise those skills. No matter how excellent your entrepreneurial skills are, they won't allow you to compete if you don't know the details of the business, unless you can hire someone who does know those details. It would be easier to learn the details of a business on the job than to amass the $200,000 or more that you would need to invest if you want to have any chance of success starting a new business that you know nothing about. Much of that money would be needed to guarantee a year's salary to someone who knows the details of the business. Since you are starting with nothing, it would be easier for you to work in the business in which you want to be an entrepreneur until you 1) know enough to run the business yourself, and 2) have saved up a somewhat smaller sum (at least maybe $30,000 depending on the business) to start the business with yourself as the only employee, with the expectation that you will live on very little income until you build up the business. Marco polo (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get a job, eg gardening (which you could obtain by having some flyers printed), then after doing it for a while to get experience, employ other people to do the work. 92.29.127.125 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I hadnt been too lazy to bother, what I meant to write was: Get a job eg gardening, then after doing it for a while to get experience, either continue on your own self-employed or if you want to avoid the physical labour employ other people to do the work. Obtain work by having some flyers printed which you put in peoples letterboxes/mailboxes. 92.15.8.176 (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better to start off working under someone else. Starting a new business legitimately takes additional funds, and doing it incorrectly (esp. for something like gardening) can expose you to legal liabilities (e.g. you are edging someone's property and you accidentally sever their sprinkler system or scratch their car — and they sue you for the repairs). For 14 year old who mow their neighbor's lawn, this is not something that is worried about, but if you are a grown adult and trying to do real business, you have to worry about things like this. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are they stumbling around drunk? 92.15.8.176 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they've got no money, there is no point suing them. 92.29.127.125 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas if that were true. But you can sue people without money, and get court orders which garnish their future wages. In any case, part of what I was trying to point out is that the "just start a new business, what could go wrong?" approach is not very sensible. It's extremely hard to start a new business or to be self-employed. If you are in a really quite marginal situation, you are better off trying to find something under someone else to begin with, and only branch out into self-employment when you have some fallback. This is something you see firsthand if you have friends (as I do) who have failed businesses. (The suggestion of self-gardening is especially impractical unless you are suggesting that they magically already have all of the tools.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting that nobody bothers to get out of bed in the morning, as they could be sued. Its unlikely that anyone is going to take a down and out to court for the things you have described. When the business is more established they can get business insurance. Its easy to start a new small business in the US or the UK, the difficult thing is making enough money to keep it going. If you cannot find a job, then taking the initiative and becoming self-employed may be your only option. I suggested gardening because in my experience people charge high rates per hour for what is a low-skill job with no qualifications required. The potential gardener may have a garden already and hence have the tools and some of the skills already. If not then home gardening tools can be bought cheaply, and there are many popular books to read about gardening. What your friends may have done is to invest/borrow a lot of money in their business, which they lost when the business folded, but this does not apply much to a self-employed gardener. 92.15.8.176 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is heaven physically located, according to Christianity? Where is hell? 92.29.127.125 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different denominations of Christianity have different beliefs on the subject. See Heaven (Christianity) for details. Similarly, see Hell in Christian beliefs for details of the different versions of hell in different denominations. --Tango (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Bible describes Heaven as being physically located just above the Firmament, the covering over the earth, on which the stars are attached. However, most modern Christians do not hold this belief, since it is not consistent with our best understanding of the structure of the world. Some modern Christians believe that Heaven is a purely spiritual place, with no physical location. Others believe in Heaven as a real, physical place, but not one that is reachable by any physical means- although they don't phrase it this way, they seem to think of it as a kind of parallel universe. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all clear that the Bible describes that. The Bible (unless you are Ethiopian or Eritrean Orthodox, who have the Book of Enoch -- which does have cosmological descriptions -- in their canon of Scripture) has no clear cosmology -- the passages in Genesis, Psalms, and Job that hint at cosmological matters are all highly poetic and possibly contradictory if taken literally (in Genesis 1 the earth appears to float upon waters, in Job 26 it is hung "upon nothing", for example; the first may mean "earth" as in "lands" and the second "the world", but they may be poetic with no clear cosmological vision). God is in some sense 'above', but again all this is highly poetic -- there is little clear reason to take these passages literally. In any case, the idea of Heaven as a location for human souls in the present age is New Testament -- the OT visions of punishment and reward focus on the Judgment Day, and have little interest in the intervening state of the dead (though there are hints in the Deuterocanon, eg Wisdom of Solomon 3) -- and the New Testament has even less cosmology. Christ ascended in a resurrected body, so some sort of bodily existence is at least possible there, but it seems not to be physical quite in the sense we know -- "a spiritual body" from 1 Corinthians, etc. Vultur (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that a lack of understanding as to the actual physical location and properties of heaven and hell doesn't actually mean they don't exist, from a religious point of view. One can accept both that they exist and that one does not have enough information about them to know their nature. --Jayron32 20:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think heaven and hell are best described as states of existence of the soul, rather than physical locations. EamonnPKeane (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't about what you think, though. Personal beliefs aren't relevant on a reference desk. --Tango (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keane's description is one I've heard a number of Christians use, so it's not just his personal idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tango I think not. But that's a fault of mine to work on. A personal belief that has gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, see WP:N, is appropriate to record in Wikipedia and therefore is also mentionable on a reference desk. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two citations that Tango posted originally here contain lots of information on various theories/beliefs as to the nature of heaven and hell. There is a lot of variation, and some of these theories are like what Keane said. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... most modern Christians do not hold this belief, since it is not consistent with our best understanding of the structure of the world." By that logic, most Christians wouldn't believe in God or Heaven at all. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP should also bear in mind that "heaven" and "hell" are ill-defined terms. Each means some subset of:

• where God is
• where God and some angels are
• where God is not
• where all dead people go
• where some dead people go
• where some dead people go before the final judgment
• where some dead people go after the final judgment

The concepts developed gradually over the time the Bible was being written, so if what you mean when you ask about details of either one according to Christianity is "according to the Bible", you may get different answers depending where you slice it. Marnanel (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, Heaven is in London, England. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, it's somewhere on earth. Marnanel (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hell is in California. Albacore (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I always thought it was in Michigan. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Do I know where hell is? Hell is in 'Hello'. Heaven is 'Goodbye forever, it's time for me to go'..." from the song "Wand'rin' Star", from Paint Your Wagon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Is this heaven?" "It's Iowa." "I could have sworn it was heaven." "Is there a heaven?" "Oh, yeh. It's the place where dreams come true." "Maybe you're right. Maybe this is heaven." -- Dialogue from Field of Dreams. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The explorer-researcher L. Ron Hubbard reported[9] "I have been to Heaven.", apparently a high place in the mountains of an unnamed planet. Two experts that disagree about the entranceway to heaven are Eddie Cochran "there are 3 steps to heaven" and Celine Dion "four steps away"[10]. Wheelchair users who strenuously overcome these hindrances croak on arrival "I'm in heaven, And my heart beats so that I can hardly speak"[11]. After recovery, the newcomers according to an interviewed imam find themselves in comfortable homes, reclining on silk couches....given the delights of sex, the delights of wine, the delights of food. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Is in the Back Seat of My Cadillac. Although it might be in the front seat. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do people who believe the Bible to be literally true make of space rockets etc? 92.29.127.125 (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, we believe that they exist, fly around, etc. What's the confusion? Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fiery chariots". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never met a person who really "believed the Bible" so maybe they persons, not bibles don't exist. However if they do, they will be conceptually challenged by the "etc" that the 92.29.127.125 wrote. A person who believes stories about a talking snake, a talking ass and a man using a whale as a submarine would on seeing a space rocket sing Psalm 68:33 "To him that rideth upon the heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I have never met" does not mean "does not exist". See Biblical inerrancy. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to the original OP question. Most Main-line Christian Churches accept that Heaven is not located in the physical but as a state, in the Spiritual realm. In the atricle page Saint Dismas, Saint Thomas Aquinas, (sorry wrong person, put here), refers to Saint Dismas in Heaven even though he was more physically in hades / sheol. So, too, we accept the same of Hell, that it is not a "physical" place but a state. The Gospel references are quite clear, and many. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Satanic Bible hell is here on earth; as for heaven, it's not a place Satanists would wish to spend eternity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out where 1829 Denver West Drive, Bldg. 27 Golden, CO 80401 is located? Is it in a municipality? Or a CDP? Where can I find very detailed census maps that can help me find this? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's either in Lakewood or West Pleasant View. The 2000 census didn't really produce such detailed maps for many communities, and factfinder2.census.gov (the main webpage for the 2010 census) doesn't have maps available yet, as far as I can tell. However, I can give you another type of source: the Jefferson County website has a detailed GIS that you can use. Go to it, accept their terms, and navigate to the area that you want. You'll see that there's a blob of Lakewood that literally has Denver West Drive as its eastern boundary; when I put the address into Google Maps, it shows me a spot almost exactly on the southern boundary of the blob. The GIS window says that it has an option of using aerial view, but I've not found it yet. Finally — according to a 2000 Census Bureau map, the circle within that blob is included within West Pleasant View. Although I can't find a 2010 map, I know that West Pleasant View is still in existence, so it probably includes that area. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better answer — it's definitely unincorporated, so unless the boundaries have changed for 2010, it's in West Pleasant View. If you look at the page I linked as "go to it", you'll see a link entitled "Address Wizard". Go to it, enter the house number (just "1829", not "1829 Denver West Drive", or it will complain that "D" and "e" and "n" and all the other characters aren't integers :-), click Submit, click 1829 DENVER WEST DR, click Submit, and it will give you a report on the property with tons of information ranging from its municipal status (unincorporated) to such well-known information as the names of the U.S. Senators for the area. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps takes you to the Jefferson County Board of Education Building, so if all else fails, call them and ask. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that people often have no idea whether they're within municipal limits at the precise moment (unless they're at their house, because they should know whether they pay municipal taxes), especially when they're so close to the border, so I'm sure that the county's GIS should be trusted here. Nyttend (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Nyttend :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]