For what reason did Buddha rejected Upanishad and Vedas?

I'm following the four foundations of mindfulness. This has given me round-the-clock body awareness. It can often be painful; but it can often be pleasant. The pleasantness is marred by its opposite. I notice from time to time the density of my body disappears along with all ideas of pleasant and unpleasant and their respective sensations. ## Questions ## Is the body a perception like all other perceptions? How does the subtle perceptions described in MN 121 translate into the body? - I'm asking this as there appears to be greater mental/emotional turmoil like an archaic or ancient frustration/restlessness.

The Yogacara container universe model posits that shared reality is due to similar karmic traces or samskaras of sentient beings.this is perfectly fine,as sentient beings with similar karmic dispositions will interact with each other and have theoretically the same reality(theoretically this is possible,but for this to happen in reality especially without interruption for infinite sentient beings without error is very improbable),but there must have been a time where this series started.ni.e the series of karma-samskara->appearance cannot go into infinite regress.and there must of been a time when infinite sentient beings interacted with all of each other or produced the same samskaras leading to future shared realities before a similar shared reality could occur, to produce the series of a similar reality,but one must ask how this is possible if a shared reality is only due to shared karma or samskaras and past interaction(which is only possible with similar samskaras and karma anyway). As again,you cannot go into infinite regress of samskaras->appearances and appearances-> samskaras ,there must have been a starting point. if you say that "No" we are fine with infinite Regress and hold unto it,it must be asked how this is possible as william lane craig has shown that infinite Regress is an impossibility as an actual infinite can never be reached,as soon as you reach a point you must keep going as an infinite can not be finite. the exact same karmic seeds sprouting simultaneously (wich is just as improbable as what I posited earlier,i.e their sprouting simultaneously in infinite numbers of times for infinite group sets of sentient beings)produce a shared reality,but there must have been a time when sentient beings all interacted with each other to produce the same karmic seeds for a future association,but this would have to be before the initial series of samskaras-appearances and appearances samskaras started,but this would be impossible as there could be no shared reality without similar samskaras/ karma . Again if you claim that samskaras and karma have no beginning point, then it must be shown how this is the case. And even if it didn't have a beginning point,and infinite regression without a starting point was possible,it must be asked how shared karmic seeds sprouting all happen simultaneously in infinite cases since beginningless time without a single error.even if you assert that there must be specific conditions that create a similar appearance due to a similar samskara creating an appearance,how can this happen simultaneously for multiple sentient beings without interruption?since beginningless time?even if infinite regress were a thing,this occurring would be so improbable that it would be impossible. I just don't Understand the reasoning behind such models,it would be dependent on literal infinite regress(literally)and even if this were possible winning the lottery infinite number of times without interruption (since although similar samskaras would produce similar realities,no samskara can be exactly the same unless there were prior association which cannot go into infinite regress,and even if it could the chances of this sprouting of the same samskara/karmic trace occurring at the same time in near infinite cases without interruption since beginningless time without end would be so improbable as to be functionally impossible),endlessly forever AT THE SAME TIME. Again,lets assume shared samskaras exist and that two samskaras can be exactly the same without prior association,their sprouting simultaneously without error infinitely(i.e for near infinite sentient beings) forever would be basically functionally impossible.no error at all?no mismatch between similar but not not same samskaras producing the same realities at all?in any case?since beginningless time?and without end? By auccessive addition infinity cannot be reached at any point in time,because infinity is not finite.going backwards it cannot be posited in a chain of successive series.I'm not saying that time had a starting point just that for a successive addition causally linked chain to exist,there must be a starting point. I am not saying that samskaras producing the exact same appearances without fail endlessly for ''infinite''numbers of sentient beings is impossible.it is just HIGHLY improbable as to be functionally useless to myself.its like me being blind and fixing a rubik's cube for trillions of kalpas every 2 minutes without fail,but without end or beginning.its perfectly possible,but highly improbable. The model that would make most sense would be a realist model like that of the Theravadans wouldn't it?

I’m aware that a similar question has been asked before: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9073/2493 However, I’m looking for an answer (1) in the language of science that is (2) clear and comprehensible to readers who know nothing of buddhism. i.e. In the spirit of the great teacher, Richard Feynman, answers which depend only upon concepts which the general public are familiar with. The term “nibbana”: For example, I’m assuming that nibbana, when observed in a brain scan, looks something like the subjugation of the “task negative network” by the “task positive network.” The term “conditioned”: My understanding is that the term “conditioned” has its origins in “dependent origination”. Bhikkhu Bodhi, for example, says the “hallmark of the dharma” is the verse “All phenomenon originate with causes and conditions and with the cessation of those conditions, the dependent phenomenon also cease.” For example: From the 4 noble truths: The origin of suffering is craving and clinging. The conditions which give rise to suffering are “craving and clinging”. With the cessation of craving and clinging, the dependent phenomenon, suffering, also ceases. From this example, my best guess is that “unconditioned” simply means the cessation of the arising of the conditions (craving and clinging) which give rise to suffering. i.e. un-conditioned means the cessation of conditions. It does not mean that the mind state of nibbana can be achieved without creating the conditions of the cessation of craving and clinging. Is this correct?

Why did the Buddha take 7 years to attain Nirvana? Since he was a pure-hearted person who had never sinned, why not a shorter time?

Tibetan texts that belong to the genre of *tenets* (doctrinal classification) usually claim that the Cittamatra school refutes external existence. These texts further claim that Cittamatrin posit that *'the apprehended object and the apprehending consciousness are empty of being different substances'*. They say that, according to Cittamatrin, the apprehending consciousness and the object it apprehends both arise simultaneously from a seed that was left in the mind-basis-of-all (alaya-vijñana), and that, given so, the object is not a cause of the consciousness apprehending it (as opposed to what Vaïbashikas and Sautrantika posit). Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen writes: > An illustration of the selflessness of phenomena is, for example, the > emptiness that is a form and the valid cognizer apprehending that form > being empty of being different substances.
It is difficult for me to conceive, and to admit, that Cittamatrin refute external existence altogether. It would mean they refute that one is born from a mother and a father, and so forth. Moreover, I doubt Tibetan scholars who claim that 'Cittamatrin refute external existence' because they have an agenda. Tibetan scholars often simplify (if not even caricature) their opponent's positions (in this case, Cittamatrin). So, not sticking to Tibetan literature only, my idea was to seek whether Cittamatrin actually refute external existence by reading works written by proponents of the Cittamatra school. Let us consider Suzuki, in *Studies in the Lankavatara* (p. 114). He writes: > As indeed the idealistic Mahayana does not admit the > existence of an external world, whatever qualities we ordinarily think > as belonging to the latter are creations or constructions of our own > mind. Suzuki seems to say *"Cittamatra refute external existence"*, but **he does not do so explicitly**. He says "they do not admit the existence of an external world" but this does not necessarily amount to "refuting the existence of external world". As far as I know, he could be saying "We can not know anything but the aspects our consciousness takes. We can not see beyond our perceptions. We can not know for sure whether our perceptions are perceptions of something external. So, let us not bother with thinking of an external world - be it to refute its existence or claim its existence - and let us stick with what we know: that the eye-consciousness seeing blue takes the aspect of blue, and that we know nothing else." ---------- Thus, the question is: Do Cittamatra / Yogacara **explicitly** refute the existence of an external world? Or do they simply "not admit, not take into acount" the existence of an external world? References are welcome.

With reference to the title of the question, I would like to know if the person blessed or under a curse if for him the past, present, and future are the same? If by unlawful acts he is elevated to a higher position when these three positions are better. He wants such a condition to perpetuate and go on. If he is downgraded for his lawful acts, his downfall is usually bitter for him. How to analyze the situations?

Fairly regularly people ask me to pray for them or their family members. In my understanding, Buddhist don't generally pray for things to be different than what they are. But it never seems appropriate to mention this to a person who might be upset so I just say "of course" and leave it at that. But the truth is, outside of metta for everyone, I don't pray for such things as my neighbor's uncle's knee replacement operation or for my co-worker's daughter to advance in the state championship for soccer. So I'm lying to someone and that's uncomfortable and not a good mind state to be in. First, is my understanding that Buddhist don't generally pray for things to be other than what they are wrong view? And if not, what might be a better way to handle prayer requests?

From Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche teaching I came to understand that non-judgmental observation of situations and aversion of attachments is the way to get rid of sufferings. Then how would a teacher evaluate a student's knowledge on anything? In traditional schools and colleges there are grading systems. Students are assigned grades according to their exam results. How are students evaluated in Buddhist monasteries?

The bowl, the robes, the lodgings, the medicines - are these private property, or shared within a Sangha of monks?

Charging money for teaching time seems like it goes against the spirit of the dharma. I’m asking because I was looking for a teacher and came across one that did charge money.

I've read here , that: > As Dza Patrul Rinpoche candidly says (AKC 15): Ritual sessions four > times a day without the generation and completion stages, pounding > drums and clashing cymbals without reminding ourselves of pure > perception, droning mantras without any concentration: all that gets > us no further on the path to liberation. What is meant by "pure perception"? As I understood it, it means recognize Shunyata – but to recognize this, you need to be enlightened (?). **As a lay practitioner at the beginning of the path what is meant by "pure perception"?**

I'm looking to get a tattoo and have anicca written in Pali in several places. Can you help me with how to write this in Pali script? Thanks in advance!

I use the Tara mantra as my focus during Samatha meditation prior to beginning Vipassana but lately I am beginning to wonder...am I falling asleep? I can't tell, really. I don't get drowsy but my mantra becomes so quiet that it begins to merge with the thought-stream that it is resting on, and then I lose awareness of both until my consciousness returns to the fact that I am still chanting, but without any awareness of what, if anything, I was actually thinking about-the thoughts being too quiet to catch or to get caught in. But just as there is no going, there is no returning either (no waking up) with this experience, just very subtle ebb and flow. When I began a regular meditation practice about five months ago discursive thought would become loud enough to break my concentration. It still does, of course, more often than not, and I thoroughly enjoy the challenge of "getting caught up in the flow" only to return to the mantra. But lately it is like meditation has lost its urgency. It has become so much a part of my life. It has become like that ebb and flow and I just want to rest in the stillness of that. It is just so beautiful...but then I start to think that maybe it is an escape from being present and that my mind is playing with me. I would really like to know what is going on, and if there is somewhere I should be going with this, some way that I should be practice with it skillfully.

I have been trying to gather Tibetan etexts like the Kangyur, and have found two sources: - [Adarsha](https://adarsha.dharma-treasure.org/kdbs/degekangyur?pbId=2977725&locale=bo) - [AsianClassics](https://asianclassics.org/library/downloads/) Later I realized there are multiple editions of the "[Kangyur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangyur) " composed at different times. Kangyur seems to be as Wikipedia says, "loosely defined set of texts" meaning the "translated words" of the buddha. But digging into this deeper and looking at the above two sources, they are organized into **chunks** of text like this: རྩོད་པ་དང་། །དགེ་འདུན་དབྱེན་རྣམས་བསྡུས་པ་ཡིན། །རབ་ཏུ་འབྱུང་བའི་གཞིའི་སྤྱི་སྡོམ་ལ། ཤཱ་རིའི་བུ་དང་མུ་སྟེགས་ཅན། །དགེ་ཚུལ་གཉིས་དང་བྱ་རོག་སྐྲོད། །དགྲ་བཅོམ་བསད་དང་ལག་རྡུམ་གྱི། །སྡེ་ཚན་ ཡང་དག་བསྡུས་པ་ཡིན། །སྡོམ་ལ། ཤཱ་རིའི་བུ་དང་རབ་འབྱུང་དང་། །བསྙེན་པར་རྫོགས་པར་གནང་བ་དང་། །ཉེ་སྡེས་ཚོགས་ནི་བསྡུས་པ་དང་། །ལྔ་པའི་སྡེ་ཚན་བསྡུས་པ་ཡིན། །བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་དགའ་ལྡན་གྱི་གནས་ན་བཞུགས་པ་ན། ཡུལ་ཨང་ག་དག་ན་ཨང་གའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བས་རྒྱལ་སྲིད་འབྱོར་པ། རྒྱས་པ་བདེ་བ་ལོ་ལེགས་པ་སྐྱེ་བོ་དང་མི་མང་པོས་གང་བ་བྱེད་དུ་བཅུག་གོ། །ཡུལ་མ་ག་དྷཱ་དག་ན་ཡང་རྒྱལ་པོ་པད་མ་ཆེན་པོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བས། རྒྱལ་སྲིད་འབྱོར་པ་རྒྱས་པ་བདེ་བ་ལོ་ ལེགས་པ་སྐྱེ་བོ་དང་མི་མང་པོས་གང་བ་བྱེད་དུ་བཅུག་གོ། །རེས་འགའ་ནི་ཨང་གའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་དཔུང་དང་མཐུ་ཆེ་བ་ཡིན་ལ། རེས་འགའ་ནི་རྒྱལ་པོ་པད་མ་ཆེན་པོ་དཔུང་དང་མཐུ་ཆེ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །གང་གི་ཚེ་ཨང་གའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་དཔུང་དང་མཐུ་ཆེ་བ་དེའི་ཚེ་ ན། དེས་དཔུང་གི་ཚོགས་ཡན་ལག་བཞི་པ། གླང་པོ་ཆེ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། རྟ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། ཤིང་རྟ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། དཔུང་བུ་ཆུང་གི་ཚོགས་གོ་བསྐོན་ཏེ། ཡུལ་མ་ག་དྷཱ་རྒྱལ་པོའི་ཁབ་མ་གཏོགས་པ་བཅོམ་ནས་ཕྱིར་ལྡོག་པར་ བྱེད་དོ། །གང་གི་ཚེ་རྒྱལ་པོ་པད་མ་ཆེན་པོ་དཔུང་དང་མཐུ་ཆེ་བ་དེའི་ཚེ་ན། དེས་ཀྱང་དཔུང་གི་ཚོགས་ཡན་ལག་བཞི་པ། གླང་པོ་ཆེ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། རྟ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། ཤིང་རྟ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། དཔུང་བུ་ཆུང་གི་ཚོགས་གོ་བསྐོན་ཏེ། On Adarsha's Derge Kangyur specifically, it looks like every chunk is 6 or 7 lines. I am assuming this is because it was carved on wood blocks that look something like this: But I haven't been able to find anything in images that match the _length_ of the text on each line. The images such as on [tbrc](https://www.tbrc.org/?locale=en#library_work_ViewInWIndow-W20749%7C1264%7C1%7C1%7C1%7C626) look like this, which has much shorter lines of lets say 50 characters instead of 200 in the unicode (i.e. the unicode text is much larger): But then you look to thlib and see their [catalog](http://www.thlib.org/encyclopedias/literary/canons/kt/catalog.php#cat=d/k) . They list works such as **འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་ཁྲི་པ་ཤེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ་** (actually I got that name from the RigpaWiki). Scratch that, they list works like འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་ཁྲི་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ, "The Perfection of Wisdom in 10,000 lines". Searching Google for [འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་ཁྲི་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ](https://www.google.com/search?q=%E0%BD%A0%E0%BD%95%E0%BD%82%E0%BD%A6%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%94%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%A4%E0%BD%BA%E0%BD%A6%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%A2%E0%BD%96%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%80%E0%BE%B1%E0%BD%B2%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%95%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%A2%E0%BD%BC%E0%BD%A3%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%8F%E0%BD%B4%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%95%E0%BE%B1%E0%BD%B2%E0%BD%93%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%94%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%81%E0%BE%B2%E0%BD%B2%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%94%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%9E%E0%BD%BA%E0%BD%A6%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%96%E0%BE%B1%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%96%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%90%E0%BD%BA%E0%BD%82%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%94%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%86%E0%BD%BA%E0%BD%93%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%94%E0%BD%BC%E0%BD%A0%E0%BD%B2%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%98%E0%BD%91%E0%BD%BC) clicking around a bit gives [this](https://www.tbrc.org/?locale=bo#library_work_ViewByOutline-O1PD89051C2O0039%7CW1PD89051) , which looks closer is length to the unicode one: Wikipedia says "Perfection of Wisdom in 10,000 Lines" is ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ, so that's 3 different titles for the same text from 3 places. First question is, where are these people getting the _titles_ from? The texts are just on these slates seemingly without titles. Are the titles only added after the fact when classifying them in their corresponding library? Second question is, since say the Adarsha texts are divided into these 6 or 7 line chunks. How does one invent the "Perfection of Wisdom in 10,000 Lines" boundary? Are these "books" just a shelf of slates in a certain order? Are the slates kept in order? How do you know what constitutes a "complete book" like _Perfection of Wisdom in 10,000 Lines_? Who says that it's a book, the writers or the catalogers? Third part of the question is, what is the most important aspect to keep in the structure of the text: 1. The physical layout? 2. The spacing between "tibetan words"? 3. The ordering of the slates? 4. The grouping of the volumes like in the Kangyur? Basically, I want to know how to build an easy to consume Tibetan script collection of "texts". In the same way the Bible has a bunch of books, each with Chapters, each with Verses (all of which were added later, only books were the first thing to exist). Can you remove all the formatting and physical layout of the texts like shown above, and just make it one solid block for a whole book? What would be the most appropriate way to divide it up to make it easier to consume? The slate or block idea I don't fully understand and it seems (a) valueless and (b) a legacy factor, i.e. they had to carve it into wood because those were the tools at hand. But now with today's technology, what should be a good structure of the "texts", which can then be collected into a "canon" like the Kangyur?

Does a theravada abbott have to accept everything / anything that is offered to them? I'm referencing technology, things beyond requisites. I know it is important for abbotts to set a good example and to create trust through their actions.

How is 'consciousness' (vinyaana) defined in Buddhist texts? How similar or different is it from the way the word is used these days -- particularly in scientific studies of consciousness ?

I read the following on the internet: > Working for DoD contractors could give a very fat paycheck. However, > there're ethical issues involved. If you decide to work for them, make > sure to make it clear you'll work for defensive capabilities, not > offensive ones. There're a lot of other areas DoD needs people to > build up their defensive programs, and these should be legit from an > ethical standpoint. Is inventing "defensive" biological weapons right livelihood?

For example there's Bhikkhu Bodhi and Thanissaro Bhikkhu. What's the distinction?

Hindus believe that the Buddha opposed Vedic rites of animal sacrifice in his time, for example, on this page and on this page . This apparently influenced later Hindus to abandon the practice of animal sacrifice. In the suttas, we find the Buddha forbidding taking of a life, and this is the first precept. But are there any sutta or vinaya references showing the Buddha explicitly opposing animal sacrifices as a religious practice?