I'm very fortunate to live in an affluent part of the world. Even so, it is a common site to see people begging for money in the street. In our town there are posters up asking people not to give to beggers as it just encourages people to beg more. However habitually walking past people begging does not feel like the compassionate thing to do. Is it possible to bring Buddhist ethics and philosophy to bear on this? Should one give to beggers in this circumstance? It would be good if answers could include textual references to illustrate the point however all answers gratefully received.

Slavoj Zizek is a little unusual I think among English-speaking philisophers, in expressing substantial sympathy for Buddhist ideas, but challenging them at a basic level. Eg The Problems of Buddhism (https://youtu.be/UN1hP_lBtp0) The Buddhist Ethic & The Spirit of Global Capitalism (https://youtu.be/qkTUQYxEUjs) Zizek criticising Buddhism (https://youtu.be/IlCkLqz20W8) Zizek vs Buddhism (https://www.youtube.com/live/9zqm7ZCP9t0) To summarise, he focuses on Zen At War, and especially Suzuki, using an understanding of Sunyata to better be able to go to war. A key phrase he uses is Kurosawa's interpretation of Shakespeare: (only) "The bad sleep well". That is, inner peace at the expense of acting morally, can lead to a situation like in Japan where only a handful of Zen figures opposed imperialist violence, an unsettled mind is sometimes appropriate over non-stop inner peace come-what-may. He also criticises mindfulness practices used in workplaces to allow workers to tolerate intolerable conditions. How should we answer this? Have people already in the Buddhist world responded? I feel like the answer relates to emptiness not being no selves at all, but rather intersubjectivity: to do violence to others is to do violence to our other self. Is that a mainstream response in Buddhism, and especially in Zen?

I read the following ideas on the internet but could not find an authoritative source for these ideas: > how one gains faith after loosing faith (with wisdom, conviction) and > balances wisdom and faith. This is in fact a very important aspect of > many of the Buddhas, as well as sects of Buddhism teachings. Gelugpa > teachings of lojong explain about the importance of balancing faith > and wisdom "like 2 wings of a bird", as well as faith of importance in > theravada school (until one reaches state of stream entry) > > Gelugpa teachings of lojong explain about the importance of balancing > faith and wisdom "like 2 wings of a bird", as well as faith of > importance in theravada school (until one reaches state of stream > entry) All I could find on the internet was: > Just as the birds fly through God's creation on two graceful wings, we > fly to the truth of the Church on wings of faith and reason. > > [Minnesota Catholicism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Crookston) Are faith & wisdom two wings of a bird (somewhere) in Buddhism?

It seems the goal of Buddhist practice is to become an Arahant - someone who won't take a rebirth, and therefore will be eternally relieved from suffering. But WHO is this someone who doesn't get reborn? I mean if there never was a self to begin with, then who exactly achieved Nirvana? Seriously, this line of thought is screwing up my motivation. All this work, just so someone who doesn't exist yet, and never will, doesn't have to suffer. Buddhism doesn't promise relief from suffering in the current lifetime, in fact it guarantees us we'll all die, and most of us will suffer from sickness and old age (not to mention loads of other suffering), but it promises an end by not taking a rebirth - but the whole concept of rebirth is made utterly confusing by the concept of non-self.

While discussing the answer to a question in comments I was told that there is no concept of Atman in suttas. My understanding is that atta covers the concept of Atman. Atman is soul or self which is imperishable and we return to Atman after death. Atman never dies. If we see DN 1 it covers all kinds of self views including the Atman as follows : ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. This is the Upaniṣadic view of the eternal ātman that is the immanent soul of the world or cosmos, loka. Elsewhere in the suttas such theorists assert that the self and the cosmos are identical (SN 24.3:1.3: so attā so loko). ‘sassato attā ca loko ca vañjho kūṭaṭṭho esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhito; So my question is : Is there no discussion in Suttas about Atman ?

I find myself frequently drawn towards the philosphy and teachings of the Buddha and feel eager to learn more about it and incorporate it in my life. However, coming from a background where the Vedas and puranas (which are deemed the 5th veda) are held as gospel truth, I often find my faith in the teachings wavering due to my long prior exposure to countless texts from this very background that reiterate again and again that Buddhism is a false philosophy created only for the destruction & delusion of the asuras/demoniacal people. A small sample - Brahmanda purana > 38b-42. Formerly, in the battle between the Devas and the Asuras, **the > Asuras were defeated. They created the heretics like Vṛddhaśrāvakīs, > Nirgranthas, (nude Jainas), Śākyas (Buddhists)**, Jīvaskas and Kārpaṭas. Padma Purana 6.236.5-7 > **Visnu of the form of Buddha proclaimed the false Buddhist doctrine and > those of the naked and wearing dark blue garments for the destruction > of the demons.** The doctrine of Maya (illusion) is a wicked doctrine > and said to be pseudo- Buddhist. I myself, of the form of a Brahmana, > proclaimed it in Kali (age).” Agni Purana 16.1-6 > They sought refuge in the lord saying, “Protect us! Protect us!”. He > (Viṣṇu), who is of the form of illusory delusion became the son of > Śuddhodana. > > 3-4. He deluded those demons. **Those, who had abandoned the path laid > down in the Vedas, became the Bauddhas and from them others who had > abandoned the Vedas. He then became the Arhat (Jaina). He then made > others as Arhats. Thus the heretics came into being devoid of vedic > dharmas.** > > **5-6. They did such a work deserving hell (as reward).** They would > receive even from the vile. All of them became mixed Dasyus and devoid > of good conduct at the end of Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana III.18.14-26 > **It is known” (Budhyate), these Daityas were induced by the arch > deceiver to deviate from their religious duties (and become Bauddhas), > by his repeated arguments and variously urged persuasions, When they > had abandoned their own faith, they persuaded others to do the same, > and the heresy spread, and many deserted the practices enjoined by the > Vedas and the laws. The delusions of the false teacher paused not with > the conversion of the Daityas to the Jaina and Bauddha heresies, but > with various erroneous tenets he prevailed upon others to apostatize, > until the whole were led astray, and deserted the doctrines and > observances inculcated by the three Vedas**. Some then spake evil of the > sacred books; some blasphemed the gods; some treated sacrifices and > other devotional ceremonies with scorn; and others calumniated the > Brahmans. “The precepts,” they cried, “that lead to the injury of > animal life (as in sacrifices) are highly reprehensible. To say that > casting butter into flame is productive of reward, is mere > childishness. If Indra, after having obtained godhead by multiplied > rites, is fed upon the wood used as fuel in holy fire, he is lower > than a brute, which feeds at least upon leaves. If an animal > slaughtered in religious worship is thereby raised to heaven, would it > not be expedient for a man who institutes a sacrifice to kill his own > father for a victim..." For those who are not from the same background where the vedas and puranas(which are deemed the 5th veda) are held as the paramount truth, it would probably seem like a very trivial issue. A non-issue even. However due to my frequent exposure to such instances, I often find myself mentally torn despite deep inside wanting to follow the Buddha's way. It's as if a part of me is always afraid :- What if these texts are true and buddhism is false? My Question is, As someone who aspires to embrace buddhism, how should I weed out the self-doubt created in my mind from these towards the buddhist philosophy? Please help.

I read the following on the internet: > Everything is Buddha nature. Is everything is Buddha nature? Please provide answers from established Buddhist traditions which teach the concept of Buddha Nature.

Let me paraphrase it as best I can. There was a youth named Shining Countenance who approached the Tathagata. He prostrated to him and circumambulated him 7 times. "My Lord I am going on a journey and I fear for my safety." The blessed one spoke. "There is a Buddha realm called "Shaking All Defilements." In that realm exists a Tathagata, an Arahant a fully enlightened Buddha named "Buddha Subsequent Conduct." Remember this Buddha, prostrate to him, pray to him and you will have no fear on your journey and your goals will be met."

A Mahayana-practising member wrote this comment : > With respect, the Theravada generally has a much more coarse > understanding of emptiness and anatta and is confused as to the object > of negation. In much the way that placing a bag of ice on a gushing > head wound has some efficacy, yet is utterly incapable of actually > curing the wound the Theravada understanding anatta doctrine is very > helpful, but insufficient to provide a genuine antidote to ignorance > and hence suffering ..... The Mahayana tenet systems ... > believe Theravada adherents are not ready to understand, > but will understand the selflessness of phenomena eventually as they > continue to progress on the path. I would like to understand the perspective of Mahayana Buddhists on why Theravada's anatta (and dependent origination) doctrine is "*insufficient to provide a genuine antidote to ignorance and hence suffering*" compared to Mahayana's sunyata (emptiness) doctrine?

One of my main problems with Indian religions has always been cult-like and occult-like practices that is present in it, especially Hinduism. I thought Buddhism, given what Buddha taught, would be immune to it but it doesn't seem so. Vajrayana consists of weird mantra chantings, doing of taboo stuff like alcohol and sexual orgies. Many Buddhists online seem to say "Oh no no, it is not just about sex. Westerners are misinterpreting it!" but sex DOES seem to be a huge part of tantra and therefore Vajrayana. Whereas Buddhism teaches self-restraint, Vajrayana teaches doing sexual orgies and chanting mantras and remembering aweful looking deities while doing it. The practices are esoteric and has to be done under the guidance of a guru. This is seriously cult 101. You can study anthropology and religious studies, almost every single cult revolves around these kind of practices. A lot of abuse happen under these things - there are gurus who pretend that the illicit sex they are having with disciples or consorts or children are not bad but part of the 'path to enlightenment' and in the process simply use their influence to get sex and rape/groom people. One of the reasons despite being born in a Hindu family I distanced myself from Hinduism was the, what Abrahamic religions would call, 'demonic' practices - strange rituals, gods who are immoral and make people do immoral things, leads to insanity, frauds and immorality, esotericism, etc. Abrahamics already have a very negative view of Hinduism and Buddhism, and things like tantra and Vajrayana are definitely not helping. Why is such a school of practice allowed in Buddhism?

Are there any buddhist methods to maintain self control when one is not meditating? I can easily maintain self control while meditating but after meditation in daily life , I am met with choices which breaks self control. I know I am responsible for what I do? But how to change one's perspective when met with such choices? Like I have two choices : one to give effort to my daily job sincerely or second to avoid my responsibility because I believe my work causes me suffering. If I try to supress these desires they become stronger and stronger next time So,this is my problem. Are there any texts that can help me Or any buddhist practices other than meditation that is easy to perform to supress desires of avoiding responsibility?

I have heard that buddha mentioned vedas in some of his discussions. What about ramayana or mahabharata? Did buddha or any of his close contemporaries mention them anywhere?

Many people claim that the buddhist concept of samadhi is just a rehash of what Patanjali taught in the yoga sutras, by rehashing the teachings within the framework of anatman concept. Is it true? If not , what distinguishes the buddhist samadhi or makes it a higher/better state than the samadhi of the yoga school?

Śāntideva's *Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra* is a renowned Mahayana text and the source of many ideas, prayers and practices, down to today, particularly the Bodhisattva ideal, Bodhicitta, and practices for achieving it. Śāntideva wrote it in the 8th-century CE (with a miraculous story to go with it), and it was a major source of Atiśa's teachings in India and Tibet in the 11th-century CE. Atiśa learned about it from Dharmakīrtiśrī (Tibetan: Serlingpa), an Indonesian master, particularly the eighth chapter on practices for the development of Bodhicitta, according to commonly accepted history. Since then, it has become a standard part of the Mahayana literature across Asia and the world. My question: are there any extant references to the *Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra* **between those dates -- its origin in the 8th-century and Atiśa's 11th-centuries teachings** -- commentaries or other mentions? The Indian Mahayana was at its peak in those years, prior to its decline in the wake of various invasions, so it stands to reason that the *Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra* would have been a significant part of it. Or did Serlingpa and Atiśa resurrect it from a relatively unknown, under-appreciated state? ------------ Addendum 1/6/2021 -- The fact that Atiśa had to go to Indonesia for twelve years to study Bodhicitta and its practices with Serlingpa suggests that the subject was indeed under-appreciated in India prior to Atiśa, even at the great centers such as Nalanda and Vikramaśilā (where Atiśa was abbot upon return from Indonesia). That all raises the question of ancient Mahayana history in Indonesia, which seems little studied or documented, at least in English.

The Abrahamic religions have the belief that condemnation to hell is eternal. Hinduism, despite most of it's sects holding the belief that hell is non eternal, still has one sect that believes otherwise: The dvaita vedanta sect of madhvacharya which believes a certain class of souls can be condemned to eternal hell Are there any sub sects within Buddhism that believe in eternal hell?

I have heard a certain interpretation of the 5th precept and I'm curious about it, the person said that for lay people the 5th precept means "not drinking alcohol to the point you get intoxicated or lose control of your actions", therefore it would be ok to drink a glass of wine having dinner for instance. On the other hand, once you start drinking it becomes very hard to know your limits, most of the people don't have this ability. Is there a limit or something regarding drinking alcohol according to Buddhism?

I am looking for some books/textual references which describe in detail the meditative experiences of advanced practitioners of Buddhism, their experiences with Śūnyatā and the realisation of anatta. It can be the experiences of the Buddha, experiences of the Buddha's senior disciples, experiences of followers who lived during the Buddha's time, or experiences of contemporary Buddhists. Any help would be much appreciated.

In relation to a creator god, was the Buddha an atheist, theist or agnostic? Please provide answers with quotes from Buddhist scriptures.

The following are some arguments I came across from Advaita vedantists in some online forums against the buddhist view of the self. I am curious as to how Buddhists well versed into the philosophy would respond to them. **Buddhist Perspective on Self** > The Buddhist denial of Self is based on a misunderstanding of what > Advaita means by Atman. Atman is not a separate, individual entity but > the very essence of consciousness itself. The Buddha’s teaching of > No-Self (Anatta) was primarily aimed at refuting the notion of a > permanent, unchanging individual self, which Advaita also rejects. > > Advaita agrees that there is no permanent individual self, but asserts > that there is an underlying, unchanging consciousness (Brahman/Atman) > that is the substrate of all experience. This consciousness is not > separate from the world but is its very essence. > > The Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada’s Karika demonstrate that waking, > dream, and deep sleep states all require a conscious witness that > persists through all states. This witness-consciousness is what > Advaita refers to as Atman. **Arguments Against Atman** > The Buddhist argument that the Self is a mental abstraction fails to > recognize the self-evident nature of consciousness. As Shankara points > out in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras, the existence of the Self > is self-evident and cannot be denied, for it is the very basis of all > denial. > > The Buddha’s reluctance to explicitly state “There is no self” can be > seen as an acknowledgment of the problematic nature of such a > statement. If there truly is no self, who is it that realizes this > truth? Who attains Nirvana? > > Advaita agrees that the idea of an individual, separate self leads to > suffering. However, it posits that the solution is not to deny the > Self altogether, but to realize one’s true nature as the universal > Self (Brahman). > > The Buddhist critique of “me” and “mine” is valid for the ego-self, > but not for the universal Self of Advaita. Realizing one’s true nature > as Brahman leads not to selfishness, but to universal love and > compassion, as seen in the lives of great Advaita sages. **Conditioned Genesis and Dependent Origination** > Advaita acknowledges the validity of Dependent Origination at the > empirical level (vyavaharika satya). However, it points out that the > very recognition of this interdependence requires a consciousness that > is not itself part of the causal chain. > > The 12-factor formula of paticca-samuppada is a brilliant analysis of > the cycle of samsara. However, Advaita asks: Who is aware of this > cycle? The awareness of the cycle cannot itself be part of the cycle. > > The Buddha’s rejection of soul-theories is understood in Advaita as a > rejection of limited concepts of self, not of consciousness itself. > The “correct approach” described in Buddhism of seeing things > objectively without mental projections is precisely what leads to the > Advaitic realization of non-dual awareness. > > In conclusion, while Buddhism provides valuable insights into the > nature of reality, Advaita Vedanta offers a more comprehensive > framework that accounts for both the changing phenomena and the > unchanging awareness that is their substrate. It is this unchanging, > ever-present consciousness that we call Brahman or Atman, the > realization of which leads to true and lasting freedom.

This question may seem a little new age. I am often discouraged in my life in general by the belief that I want more, nothing specific, but something is missing, perhaps a more meaningful life. Could this be attachment or thirst for an abstract idea? Can we be attached to the objects of the 6th consciousness? It's not obviously causing me to suffer physically or psychologically, perhaps in a subtle way, and it may be the suffering of change as it manifests to the 6th consciousness and its attachments. Any ideas? FTR I ***definitely don't blame*** - Buddhist - religion for that, even having had religious psychosis. It is just the mundane sense that my past is a disappointment and there's nothing I can do to shift my future into something better than that.