It is commonly claimed in Nyaya and Vedanta circles that Udayanacharya brought an end to the long-standing philosophical debate between Buddhist thinkers and Vaidika traditions. His works, such as Kusumanjali, Atmatattva Viveka, and Nyaya Vartika Tatparya Parishuddhi, are said to have decisively refuted core Buddhist doctrines like shunyavada, kshanikavada, and vigyanavada. A Traditionalist Vedantin author summarizes this viewpoint as follows: > **"Dharmkirti who is well known for his scholarly works, criticized > nyaya doctrines and Vartikam in his Work called “Praman -Vartika”. > After Dharmkirti Buddhism went into decline, last work which was a > considerable criticism was written by a Nalanda professor as > “TatvaSangraha”. In This tatvaSangraha the writer had also tried to > critize BhagvatPad Sankara’ views (verse 330-331). > > Vachaspati misra who was the knower of 12 darshanas, He wrote Nyaya > Vartika Tatparya tika and answered the claims that were made till now > in a very good manner. His refutations are Calm,deep and subtle.** > > **An unexpected refutation came from Kashmir and that was from Jayanta > Bhatt. He wrote an independant commentary on NyayA suTras called > “Nyaya Manjari” He established the authority of the Veda and refuted > the buddhist doctrines mercilessly.** He has quoted everyone be it > DharmaKirti, Dingnaga or Dharmottara. > > Bhasvarajna an other Kashmiri wrote ‘NyayaBhusana’. He criticized > everyone from Nagarjuna till Prajnakara Gupta(writer of > VartikaAlankara). > > Jayanta Has wrote a verse while refuting क्षणिकवाद which goes as > follows :- > > **नास्त्यात्मा फलभोगमात्रमथ च स्वर्गाय चैत्यार्चनं , संस्काराः क्षणिकाः > युगस्थितिभृतश्चैते विहाराः कृताः । सर्व शून्यमिदं वसूनि गुरवे देहीति > चादिश्यते, बौद्धानां चरितं किमन्यदियती दम्भस्य भूमिः परा ॥** > > **You Bauddhas, hold that there is no soul, yet you construct caityas > (towers) to enjoy pleasure in paradise after death; you say that > everything is momentary, yet you build monasteries with the hope that > they will last for centuries; and you say that the world is void, yet > you teach that wealth should be given to spiritual guides. What a > strange character the Bauddhas possess; they are verily a monument of > conceit.** > > **JnanaSariMitra and his disciple RatnaKirti wrote some works answering > Vachaspati and made last tries to save buddhist philosophy from the > attacks of logicians.** > > **UdayanaCharya ended this debate with very strong logics.** He composed > works as “Kusumanajali” “Atma Tatva Viveka” and “Nyaya Vartika > Tatparya Parishuddhi” and refuted ShunyaVada,KshanikVada,VigyanVada. > > There are other works as Bauddha Dhikkara tika(sankara misra) and > Bauddh dhikkar shiromani **but till then Buddhism became a history.**" Source - The Literary debates between Buddhists and Vaidikas Given this narrative, my question is the following: Did any later Buddhist philosophers, either in India, Tibet, Nepal, or elsewhere, directly or indirectly respond to Udayanacharya's arguments? Are there surviving texts or commentaries that attempt to refute or answer his critiques of the Buddhist doctrines of no-self, momentariness, and emptiness? Or did the Buddhist tradition leave Udayana's works unanswered, either due to historical decline or strategic neglect? Any textual, historical, or scholastic leads would be much appreciated.

In particular, does Buddhism think that rebirth is a solution to a human need, or is it a mechanic to how the universe works? And is rebirth a type of regeneration? In my interpretation of Buddhism, rebirth is the means by which pain does not last forever, because according to type theory, pain should be eternal.

I'm looking to translate into English the name Namkha Chenpo Dewachen Gompa. Any idea of its precise meaning? Thanks a lot!

As I understand it, “bare awareness” is a meditation technique whereby anything that arises is noticed without judgement and allowed to pass without interaction by the meditator. Shikan Tasa means “just sitting” and is employed in Soto Zen. I’m not sure what the difference between the two techniques is.

Is it commonly taught in buddhism to 'deem' one's thought or actions to be of a category? Example: Thoughts are about how to redeem oneself after having said something to a crush that makes us look unattractive. Then, we become aware of this thought, and categorize it as "Worrying about sexual/romantic attainments" or "Worrying about reputation", sort of "labeling" the thought. I have noticed that doing this helps me detach from aggregates, so I wonder if this is an established practice.

I have been focused on the breath in meditation and I am interested in Vipassana, but I am confused about the object of meditation. I have read that you focus on the breath and as thoughts arise, you should observe them and then return to the breath and that it is the returning to the breath that increases one's mindfulness. I have also read that in Vipassana meditation, one shifts the object of meditation to the thoughts that arise and make them the object of mediation. This approach seems to be just sitting and letting your thoughts wander. Do I misunderstand the meaning of making arising thoughts the object of meditation? As it is now, I continue to make the breath the object and observe my other thoughts but generally do not pursue them, rather just categorizing the thought (like "planning the future" or "reliving the past") and then return to the breath.

I am fairly new to the Dhamma and this site specifically. I was told by an Indian person that dyana (meditation) was a part of a yoga system which became zen in china, dharma became dhamma, most of Buddhists texts are sutras, ideas of reincarnation, maya (phenomenon), nirvana, samaddhi, sat (truth), chitta (conciousness), daya (compassion), ahinsa are all Hindu themes reinterpreted. How much did Sakyamuni reinterpreted on Brahmanism and how much is disinformed?

By that I mean, an oak tree that doesn't have a sudden death from fire or being cut down or whatever, will for all intents and purposes live many years. Everyone who comes and visits the tree will see generally the same tree. Of course, the tree is never the "same" moment to moment, every atom is being swapped out and moving around, radiation is coming and going, branches and leaves fall off and regrow, etc.. But still, if I visit the tree today, and you visit it 1 year from now (in the middle of the tree's life), the tree is still "there" (even though it might be slightly different). Everyone who walks by will point "there is a tree over there". It's persistent across time and space, for some period. I understand that everything is technically an "illusion". We are all one unified flow of stuff, and the idea of a self or independence is an illusion in the grand scheme of things. But still, within the illusion, there are basically "natural physical laws of the universe" you could say. It's not like all of a sudden, "zap", the tree is an elephant when you visit. Then boom (magic wand), it is a car, then later it is a piece of cotton, or a sun, etc.. Or it magically jumps around in space. That is, there is some sort of structure somewhat independent of me that obeys some sort of rules to stay somewhat consistent in time and space. Even if my "mind" is projecting this experience or interpretation of such a tree illusion.... Everyone's mind is basically projecting a roughly similar illusion. I saw an example of a "river" from somewhere: > - A deva sees a river as a stream of gems. > - A human sees it as water. > - A hungry ghost sees it as a river of pus and blood. Sure, fine. But it's still at least perceived as a general "flow" by all. A continuous stream. It's not like it's a rock to some and an animal to others, and a river to everyone else. Or an explosion of rippling radiation or some other dispersed and hard to imagine network/system of many things.... It's still a flow, in time and space. Maybe to a fast-moving light-being, it is like a slow moving game of tetris, etc.. But it is still moving! If you account for the change in perspective, you have the same overall "flow" in the place. So my question is, at least in Yogācāra Buddhism (or other schools deeply analyzing consciousness to that degree), how do they account for this? My understanding so far is that, in Yogācāra, everything is mind. Everything is consciousness, from the base consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). So then my question becomes "how do you account for physical form then"? To which they respond (it seems) with, "it's a mental projection". Okay, sure, MY experience of a form is a mental projection in my own mind, but that doesn't change the fact that the form is persistent in time and space (like the tree!). How does Yogācāra account for that? But then my reading/understanding of Yogācāra perspective is basically that: > All appearances, including persistent physical forms like trees, are manifestations of consciousness (vijñapti-mātra) arising from causal seeds (bīja) stored in the storehouse consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). Basically, the tree is a co-constructed, stable illusion due to ongoing karmic resonance, not an independent material substance. Its form is projected within consciousness, but projected in accordance with karmic law, which behaves much like physical law. Something like that is very hard for me to comprehend, and feels circular in reasoning somehow. Is there a way to explain how physical forms seem to persist in time and space, from this sort of mind-only perspective here? _Looking further, it seems they would say "all sentient beings who perceive the tree are doing so because they have karmic seeds that generate similar experiences." But that doesn't make any sense to me, that the tree's reality is based on everyone else's reality. Or something like that. That everything is based on everything else, and if one thing changes all of a sudden, the entire universe could change it's fundamental laws. Doesn't seem to jive with me yet. Maybe I'm also reading it wrong._

With Sangha Officials I mean high ranking monks/nuns/etc, like Abbots. With "Realms" I mean stuff like "Other world" or "Pure lands", but I mean also stuff like the concept of "Rebirth". Is it ever explicitly taught or even mentioned that they are talking about mental or spiritual phenomena/states, as opposed to supernatural "literally heaven after literally the body is dead" type stuff?

Why is buddhism so difficult to follow...the point is that...buddhism does not have gods like hinduism or christanity...who help you in turbulant times or grant you your desire if you worship them...in buddhism entire responsibility is your own you have to practise the dhamma...the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path...in buddhism there is no eternal brahman or kingdom of heaven to inflate the ego but nirvana to blow out the ego permanently...the death of ego is ultimate nightmare...present moment awareness and mindfulness is a very difficult endeavor...the buddha does not fulfill your desires if you worship him...there is no heaven or final resting place...There is no help from the outside for samsaric matters...impermanence, no-self and dukkha feel so gloomy...you can be happy in life without nirvana... Does this make buddhism difficult to follow or there is different perspective?

I’m wondering to what extent belief in some form of afterlife is necessary for one to be considered a Buddhist. Specifically, are beliefs in otherworldly realms such as svargaloka (heaven), pitriloka (spirit world), and naraka lokas (hell), as well as the idea of rebirth or reincarnation, central and non-negotiable within the Buddhist tradition? Is it possible to identify as a Buddhist while setting aside these cosmological elements, perhaps viewing them symbolically or metaphorically rather than literally? Or are these beliefs foundational in such a way that rejecting them would place someone outside the bounds of what can meaningfully be called Buddhism?

How common is it for lay people and for monks both to attain higher jhanas like sixth, seventh and the eighth ? How easy/hard it is? Have you entered any of the Jhana states yourself? If yes, what was your method?

I am learning Mahayana. Today I came across a question on web “ Why Buddha taught Trisvabhava or three natures?”. I was surprised because reality is empty of any essence but I found the word svabhava in Trisvabhavanirdesa which means three self becoming teachings. I am aware of three lakhshana or three marks of existence. Is there any sutta or sutra where Buddha mentions three svabhavas ?

Buddha as part of the noble eightfold path preached that killing any organism is an unskillful action which results in bad karma. He also preached that every buddhist monk's final aim should be nibbana. In the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, it's mentioned that one cause for earthquake is a monk attaining enlightenment. Earthquakes result in the killing of atleast few organisms. So that should mean a monk should not pursue enlightenment. How does a practicing buddhist monk address this apparent contradiction? Thanks.

Temporarily cut off of sexual excitement , do they sothapana? Or at least they free from apaya realm?whether their taint are destroyed?

As we would all know, the Buddha found/explained that self mortification like extreme fasting is not the correct way to liberation. So is dealing with extreme suffering also not an extreme? If one was in extreme poverty and/or extreme illness would it not be wiser to take the knife? Is there any precedent the Buddha explained in regards to dealing with extreme suffering and/or illness? a level of how much suffering we can or are able to endure? I know there is the story of the monk who took the knife because of extreme illness and the Buddha said he was blameless but he was already a high level attainer (not sure what stage of liberation he was) **EDIT:** wanted to bounty this as the question has not been answered and people seem to misunderstand the question and think it is related to suicide, and tag it as such just because I mentioned about taking the Knife. **The question is about what limits, if any, of suffering we should endure. Is there any precedent about when we should no longer endure suffering because it is too great.** Hypothetically imagining one is homeless, destitute in extreme poverty, starving, no limbs or illnesses akin that cause ones life to be extreme suffering or even extreme mental illness, all family and friends have died of illness or murder. Essentially one has serious negative karma where ones life is full of painful memories and painful present experiences. Is one still supposed to continue to endure such suffering forever. Well until natural death.

> Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hatred, with the fire > of delusion; burning with birth, aging, and death; with sorrow, > lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair, I say. > > Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences > revulsion... Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through > dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the > knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘**Destroyed is birth**, the > holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is > no more for this state of being.’ What does "destroyed is birth" refer to here, especially regarding a supposed person that manages to overcome, let's say, hatred. The person has a Eureka moment and proclaims "destroyed is birth". What do they mean with that, or rather, **what are they trying to express about their life**?

Kundalini yoga, as described in certain Hindu tantric lineages, describes the process of awakening a dormant spiritual energy located at the base of the spine. This energy is said to rise through a central channel, activating chakras along the way, and facilitating transformative shifts in consciousness leading to liberation. I am curious whether similar concepts or practices are found in Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhism. Specifically, do these schools recognize a comparable energy system involving chakras or subtle body channels? Are there practices aimed at awakening and directing this energy in a way that parallels Kundalini yoga? References to authoritative texts, tantric commentaries, or the instructions of qualified teachers within these lineages would be especially welcome.

So, could attainments 'rot' / be forgotten, and is this a commonly observed thing? Does the Buddha warn about taking 'breaks', or does he talk about people leaving spiritual practice and as a result losing things? Is there a sort of 'wagging the finger' attitude from high attainers/authorities toward people sidelining spiritual practice for a while?

Throughout the journey toward enlightenment and letting go of attachments, we cling to various tools given to us by the Buddha. So 'clinging to something' in general might not be bad, as long as it helps liberate from suffering. Would it be fair to say that the idea of reincarnation is then something that high attaining people cling to, in order to be liberated from fear of death? Or does the teaching primarily come from direct perception of reincarnation itself, not of it's value in liberation from suffering.