I am new to Buddhism & exploring it. Recently I came across this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6E8er3XqN0) which made me ask few questions & they are:
1)They have shown image of Lord Shiva at 13:50 above the baby(Lord Buddha). Even in Hinduism Buddha is considered one the avatars of Lord Vishnu. So is there a connection between Buddha,Shiva & Vishnu.
2)Lastly in this video they said child's(Buddha) parents are Brahmins. So was Buddha a 'Hindu Brahmin' before he attained enlightenment?

Having learned and gained complete mastery from the two most famous teachers of his time, he decided to apply extreme austerities for some six years. With these skills acquired, driving a powerful concentration, he abandoned it all in favour of a skill he discovered when as a child at the Kings Plowing Ceremony, where he entered the first jhana [Dhyāna] quite effortlessly. Furthermore, added to this cache of tools, he prior added a powerful determination to not move from that spot, even if his blood should dry up, etc, etc. The subsequent release of this energy resulted in a spectacular display of meditative attainment. In the first watch of the night investigating Kamma with respect to successive past lives, revealing causal sequence. In the second watch of the night, investigating Kamma with respect to consequences of currently available choices. In the third watch of the night, the realisation of deliverance. Not much is said about the results of the third watch. It is a fairly common experience where insights coming from seeing a new possibility after examining two different phenomena with a common factor giving rise to a eureka moment. But what may have happened in this case, such a eureka event further resulting in a realisation that Dukkha had ceased? The Buddha's quest finally achieved. During the next eight weeks, the problem of describing a way of enabling others to achieve this result, though necessarily _not_ in the same way, given the death of the two teachers, plus avoiding austerities, plus the absence of psychic powers. In developing a tangible expression for the inexpressible, the Buddha further developed the right view, that Dukkha exists, arises and ceases according to conditions. Enabling the further development of the 'noble eightfold path'. According to tradition, all this happened in an instant, that is to say, the sequence happened very rapidly: the problem is to give it coherent expression. The result: the four noble truths.

The post here specifically refers to introducing Buddhism to a child as well as meditation and recitals. I want to introduce concepts such as "clinging", "letting go", "intent", "self", "no-self" and the like. Being surrounded by children under the age of 4, I observe that certain behaviors are starting to take root e.g. clinging. If a particular toy is lost or not available, the child senses a deep loss which results in emotional and physical distress. The kids also identify with themselves with the things they are surrounded by e.g. friends, physical objects, etc

I practice Vipassana meditation and am currently going through a period of anhedonia and I am trying to understand if my depression is a sankhara or if it is simply a result of my mind reacting and not being equanimous in my everyday life. While practicing Vipassana I don't have a problem following the instructions or have an overly difficult time practicing equanimity so it doesn't make sense that I would be able to cause that much suffering in my every day life because of my reactivity. But then if it's not my mind reacting to something it means it has simply arisen for whatever cause. I find it difficult to navigate the personal accountability of what one experiences (I caused my depression by not living a fulfilling life, not providing for my needs etc) and my depression simply being caused by the inescapable suffering of life and/or sankharas. Because then it does mean that we can control our well being by changing something outside of ourselves which contradicts the idea that we are 100% responsible for the pain we carry, but that's not true is it? We are hurt and traumatised by the world and relationships and while we then have responsibility to not generate more suffering for ourselves we didn't cause the harm that was done to us in the first place which would mean that certain pain and sadness that we carry does not come from us. I realise that ultimately, whether our suffering comes from a reaction, a sankhara or from wherever else the procedure of taking care of and approaching the suffering will be by the same technique according to Vipassana, namely through observing the sensations and by practicing equanimity. But is that enough? How do you know if you need to change things in your life to be able to be well? If you practice you might feel a sense of relief and a little more clarity but what if that's not enough to actually feel a sense of meaningfulness and a desire to take action, to do things? Hope this made sense, if anyone has any insight they'd like to share around this topic I'd be deeply appreciative, thank you.

It seems to be a widely held belief held by Hindu scriptures and scholars that The God Shiva incarnated as Adi Shankaracharya in order to stop buddhism. > “In this regard, it is stated in the Padma Purana that Lord Siva > appeared as a brahmana in the age of Kali to preach the Mayavada > philosophy, which is nothing but a type of Buddhist philosophy. It is > stated in Padma Purana: **Lord Siva, speaking to Parvati-devi, > foretold that he would spread the Mayavada philosophy in the guise of > a sannyasi brahmana just to eradicate Buddhist philosophy. This > sannyasi was Sripada Sankaracarya. In order to overcome the effects of > Buddhist philosophy and spread Vedanta philosophy, Sripada > Sankaracarya had to make some compromise with the Buddhist philosophy, > and as such he preached the philosophy of monism, for it was required > at that time.** Otherwise there was no need for his preaching Mayavada > philosophy. At the present moment there is no need for Mayavada > philosophy or Buddhist philosophy, and Lord Caitanya rejected both of > them. This Krishna consciousness movement is spreading the philosophy > of Lord Caitanya and rejecting the philosophy of both classes of > Mayavadi. Strictly speaking, both Buddhist philosophy and Sankara’s > philosophy are but different types of Mayavada dealing on the platform > of material existence. Neither of these philosophies has spiritual > significance. There is spiritual significance only after one accepts > the philosophy of Bhagavad-gita, which culminates in surrendering unto > the Supreme Personality of Godhead. ~ Swami Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 4.24.17 > The exact word used in Sanskrit is nāstika, which refers to one who > does not believe in the Vedas but manufactures some concocted system > of religion. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has said that the followers of > the Buddhist system of religion are nāstikas. In order to establish > his doctrine of nonviolence, **Lord Buddha flatly refused to believe in > the Vedas, and thus, later on, Śaṅkarācārya stopped this system of > religion in India and forced it to go outside India.** ~ Swami Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 4.2.30 ---------- Now my question is NOT about what buddhists think about the validity of Advaita or Whether Shankara was an incarnation. What I am more interested in knowing is that was it really Vedanta / Adi shankara's philosophy that was the main factor responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India? What do Buddhist experts themselves opine on the matter? ---------- Edit:- It would appear the question has been flagged as duplicate. I have seen the linked question and it does not specifically address the question since none of the answers have discussed how much role Adi shankara played in the decline of buddhism in india. I would request the question to be re-opened as I am skeptical of the notion that Adi shankara philosophically defeating buddhists was the major reason behind the decline of buddhism in India and I would like to see If any evidence can be found to the contrary.

I am looking for some buddhist works that specifically criticize or refute the Vedantic concept of Atman. Any help would be appreciated.

For what is my understanding of Buddhism, the Buddha teachings aim to solve the problem of suffering. The buddha said you don't have to have faith in him or his teachings that you will be liberated from suffering, but you are encouraged to try it yourself and experiment the results. At the same time, you might need several lives to obtain liberation, isn't this equivalent to an act of faith? From the perspective of a person who is approaching Buddhism for the first time, you ask them to put a lot of effort and time on something it is not verifiable. Kinda like christianity, if you behave according to the christian commandments you will go to heaven, I feel like they are the same concept. Also during my researches I have found in Buddhism teachings there are a lot of analogies that are quite charming, but if you think about it carefully they are not quite correct. The one I have met the most is the analogy between the Four noble Truth and a medical treatment. Regarding the treatment part in particular, I think a medical treatment is a very precise and deterministic series of steps. You follow the steps and you get a precise result in more or less precise period of time. The Noble Eightfold path instead, I find it very vague, a lot of concept are explained with "it can't be comprehended with concepts and logic". Doesn't this also require an act of faith? To people who are practicing Buddhism, have you done an act of faith when you approached Buddhism for the first time?

In grade school while in class, children would sometimes shoot paper darts with a rubber band at someone sitting in front of them. Often the class would end and all would be forgotten. However, if the harassment went on for a long time, the child in front would get so irritated, and they would snap and do something violent to whoever was harassing them. Of course, the teacher would only see/hear the violent reaction and would get no backstory about what led up to it. And the victim would end up looking like the bad person. From my perspective, in addition to being angry at the person harassing them, the victim is also frustrated at themselves for losing control after being provoked. What does Buddhism have to say about this? A victim might intellectually try to resolve their problem by saying that all is "maya", but their anger would still be real. There is still an "I" that is being harassed. When fists can't resolve the problem, what other approaches can one use?

If consciousness/awareness as the 5th skandha is impermanent (?), shouldn't it cease to exist when entering Paranirvana? But in SN 22.53 the Buddha says: > "If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then > owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there > is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, > not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it > is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its > contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is > totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the > holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this > world.'" Here cuddlyable3 answers with a quote which says that: > - Damien Keown states: Nirvana [...] involves a radically transformed state of consciousness which is free of the obsession with ‘me and > mine’ > - when a person attains nirvana, they are liberated from ordinary rebirth. When such a person dies, their physical body disintegrates > and their consciousness is said to be completely liberated. They are > not reborn in the ordinary sense. Their consciousness does not take > rebirth into a physical form > - terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in the case of an Arahant, because those things—matter, sensation, perception, mental > activities, consciousness—with which the terms like ‘born’ and ‘not > born’ are associated, are completely destroyed and uprooted, never to > rise again after his death Doesn't the last point contradict with the others? For me it makes much sense that consciousness is that which gets enlightened and that Nirvana is the state of free, liberated consciousness. I mean if everything what I am, even consciousness, which I think I ultimately am, vanishes, why should I pursue enlightenment then? Thank you.

Is dedicating merit the same as transferring merit?! How do the 4 Immeasurables fit in (or do they?) And did the Buddha actually teach any of this? I know this is three questions, but they all seem connected to me.

Is the way I choose to react to a situation based entirely off of past karma or is there something else that determines how I react to an external object? I am confused between my understanding that ultimately there is no control and yet I can control my reactions to situations. Is there only a sense of control as long as an individual is not fully enlightened?

I read the following in the internet: > The Source of all life is Nirvana. Is this true? I also read the following on the internet: > Life involves suffering, dissatisfaction, and impermanence. This > suffering is inherent in birth, aging, illness, and death. If Nirvana is the Source of Life, is Nirvana the Source of Suffering?

India is the original land of Buddhism, but it is followed/practiced more outside its country of birth. Are there any reasons for this?

My Vijnana view from advaita Vedanta is deep and ingrained, it is false I know it but I need help to improve it because I read long time about conciousness the self I read much like these things like this : what about Consciousness. Have you ever experienced Consciousness without Being? For Consciousness to be known, it must be present. The reason we can say ‘I am,’ is because we know that ‘I am.’ And that which knows ‘I am’ is by definition, present, that is, being. I ceary now undertand that all these views are wrong. Honestly I knew it then to!. But had no other option. To my questions ... 1 ) When one experiences Nibbana is Nibbana experienced as in subject object relationship from the perspective of a subject or maybe there is no subject nor object during Nibbana like a state that transends that duality, In short what is happening in Nibbana what is the correct undertanding of what is happening. 2) Also more clarification needed regarding vinjana from my last question. Conciousness can be aware of itself you said, When I see something I (the mind) know what I am seeing. Isnt the knowing of what I am seeing " the knowing of what is seen and not conciousness conciousness of itself. Is conciousness conciousness of conciousness just the fact that there is the knowledge of what is happening, and is this not a thought and not conciousness conciousness of conciousness. Maybe I do not know because of my advaita even what conciousness conciousness of conciousness is so what is it. Isnt conciousness only an activity of cognizing with no cognizer. What am I missing. In which way would the conciousness of seeing imply conciousness conciousness of conciousness. 3) Also the experience of conciousness being concious of conciousness in advaita they say to experience this the same way you cannot take a step towards yourself beacuse you are already standning where you are the same way your attention cannot find conciousness as an object "relax your attention from all objects and that nothingness is conciousness awareness of itself" or ask yourself am I aware. (Do you agree that this relaxing your attention from all objects into a objectless-nothingness state is conciousness awareness of itself?), they say it seems like nothing from the point of view of the mind which knows only objects in subject object relationship while conciousness knowledge of itself is without subject or object. 4) They describe the state of relaxing our attention from all objects to come to the nothingness state as aware-being or the presence of that which is aware so they say awareness is knowing but it also IS it exists the knowledge of our own existence the knowledge I AM is conciousnessnes knowledge of itself "I know that I am" I know this is wrong view but please clarify why this nothingness state has nothing to do with how it is described. 5) When you said infinite conciousness in your last answer I suppose that doesnt include something metaphysical like infinite in space ?. 6) Also what struck me from your answer and is different from what I read and you said in the Jhana of infinite conciousness there are mental factors participating or enabling the infinite conciousness Jhana which shows this is not a blank state of nothingness , but a state you "built" up with intention,attention,perception etc am I right about this. This means if I or the mind is percieving this state I think that means that while I am percieving this state of infinitude of conciousness I am aware percieving the state of infintude of conciousnes (it is tricky because ifinitude to me indicates a infinite state where there is no mind or subject to know it) (I may be wrong) but as you described it (if I understood it) percieving this Jhana is something while we do it we know that we do it. Not like in advaita where when we relax attention from all objects and come to a nothingness we dont know anything about that state of nothingness in Buddhism this state seems to be something that during that state we are in it and percieve that state as an object to us as opposed to advaita which says there is no subject nor object when we relaxed attention from all objects and come to that state of nothingness. Huh this was not easy to understand for you if you have any questions about what I said please I understand it is complicated I am more than willing to clarify. please do not refer to me to other similar questions I saw other people having the similar question as I have but I couldnt find the satisfying answer. Once again thank you.

I wonder, in everyday life, when I feel really cold outside and I want to rush indoors for warmth, how these ascetics deal with it. I understand coldness is a part of reality and must ideally be experienced when it presents itself with a calm mind. I'm curious how ascetics, like the Buddha and his followers, manage this since they lived in the forests for extended periods without heating or modern amenities. How is it possible for them not to get sick or die from diseases and cold? More importantly, in the early stages of renunciation, how do they resist the urge to return to civilization? Sorry, if its a silly question, But I have wondered about it every day these months, without finding an answer yet. Thanks

When we offer something like food to a buddha statue (a buddha puja) the buddha statue has no benefit from it.. But we offer it (buddha puja) as a respect to buddha and gain merits.. so the buddha puja defines as giving with respect.. According to abhidhamma alobha cetasika, is the basic reason for giving ..like that I think saddha, is the basic reason for respect here.. if so what cetasika is the respect (or from what cetasikas the respect is made of?) in this occasion..

1. ***Please someone know the Jataka (past lives of the Buddha) reference number of the Bodhisatta's aspiration for Buddhahood? As Sumedha in the city of Amaravatī?*** > The E. B. Cowell Jataka edition 2. ***Secondly how many Buddhas ago was it?*** 3. ***What was the Buddhas name?*** 4. ***Finally how many aeons was it between Buddha Gotama and that Buddha?*** > notes: > 1. "four asaṃkhyeya and a hundred thousand kalpas ago" (from memory) The second and third question may come from secondary sources.

I heard the New York Times, wrote recently: "truth is bad, truth is inconvenient!" William Shakespeare once wrote "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so". - when we stop thinking it's bliss! and "all the worlds a stage and all the men and women merely players", that our time on earth is just a play a show, in order to learn. Rumi wrote "beyond ideas of good and ideas of bad there is a field, I will meet you there." Buddha is quoted in the Dhammapada as saying, "rely on nothing, until you want nothing!" Are we all enlightened already, we just haven't realised it yet? As Ramana Maharshi has appeared to indicate. I heard a person recently state "forgiveness is one of the highest forms of love". Could truth and silence be higher?

I read the following on the internet: > The Truth of Suffering (Dukkha): Life involves suffering, > dissatisfaction, and impermanence. This suffering is inherent in > birth, aging, illness, and death. > > The Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (Nirodha): It is possible to end suffering by eliminating attachment, craving, and ignorance. If suffering is inherent in life, how can suffering be ended while being alive? Must I commit suicide to end suffering? Is committing suicide eliminating attachment, craving and ignorance? What exactly did the Buddha teach in this First Noble Truth?

Can buddism help those who just worship a few statutes and have a small book and keep seeing the god in people online. Would god give a job and wife and maybe back to mainline plans or different.