Some Scholars like R.S Bhattacharya claim that while Buddha rejected the Karma-kanda portions of the vedas, he spoke Highly of the Followers of Jnana-marga or nivritti-marga of vedas in the Brahmanadhammika Sutta. Is this really true? And Does This mean Buddha indirectly approved the Upanishadic philosophy of Atman-Brahman?

If there is no self in mental formations and volition, then who carries out mindfulness? I try to see that there is no self in things. Is it not therefore that I am? 'Being mindful you'll see that even the ambition to be mindful has no self' - who sees that?

I understand that the ego is the root of all suffering — I’ve witnessed it in my own life many times, and I truly believe it. Over the years, I’ve worked hard on dissolving my ego, and today I feel much happier and more at peace. I can face the nuances of life with calm and clarity. However, I’ve reached a point where I feel so calm that I fear I’m not using my potential to do enough good in the world. I have unique capabilities, strengths, and talents that I feel could be put to better use. **How can I express and use the gift of being myself in a powerful and meaningful way — to do good — without letting the ego take the spotlight again?**

I did samatha and metta meditation for like 4 years, without a time schedule, just when I have time. Now, my problem is that I can't concentrate even for a few seconds. Old memories come, old mistakes come up, and I can't stay still, can't stay sit. I constantly think about past decisions and mistakes. I can't even think clearly. I don't have a personal meditation teacher. I learn everything from books, YouTube, and the internet. Please give me some directions. 🙏

I asked this question on the Philosophy StackExchange, as some belief systems have deep belief that everything is on a spectrum of polarity/opposites: - [What philosophies don't say things boil down to polarities (opposites)?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/118562/what-philosophies-dont-say-things-boil-down-to-polarities-opposites) What does Buddhism say about polarities/opposites? Does everything have an opposite? If so, how? I have several examples in my linked question, of what I think cannot be polarities: > I have thought a little about this and it appears that there are not > just polarities, but at least 3 classes of property values: > > 1. [On-off values](https://gist.github.com/lancejpollard/aa3b2eb6d03c997c6c42c214bf8c6701) > (not opposites, but a single property like "itchy" or "spikey", which > can have "more" or "less" of an intensity. _There is no opposite to > itchy or spikey._ At least the way I look at things. If you say > "non-itchy" as an opposite, what does that even mean? Basically it > boils down to "no value" or "some value", of one property. > 2. [Opposite values](https://gist.github.com/lancejpollard/5cd76ba84a1773fcd9228565baeb3423) . > These are your typical "polarities" like hot/cold, bright/dim, > heavy/light, etc.. Each is a single property with a pair of values on > a spectrum, ranging from one side to the other. > 3. Multidimensional values. These are things like "color", which has at least red/blue/green (rgb, 3 values ranging from 0-255 on modern > computers), or hue/saturation/lightness (hsl). I think most > "properties" belong to this category TBH, but I can't think of many > more. In coding, these are "data models" or "types with attributes".

I have been to different temples/centers/monasteries from different schools, most of them I would return regularly, but in a few I found things that didn't agree with some personal views. I must say 100% of the time I found people with nothing but good intentions, but not always I agreed with the methodology, practices or some core believes, for example: Having a "cult style". That said, I would like to ask: What are the main "warning signs" (if any) we should look for when going to a temple for the first time? (I'm not talking about a simple visit, but Dhamma talks, classes and meditation). This question aims to help beginners, it is very hard to identify "unusual practices" when a person is just starting with Buddhism and have no idea what is Vinaya or the Suttas for example.

How would one recognise if a sangha or Buddhist group is a cult or has cult type tendencies. Are there well established things to look out for? Are there cult type behaviours or patterns that would be particularly linked with Buddhism or are all cults broadly similar irrespective of their religious inspiration? We have tried to answer questions about cults before here and here however these questions have been closed down as too opinion based. However I'm hoping by broadening the scope and moving it away from any one group it may help to keep this more objective. Also I would imagine that there are scholarly studies in this area so I'm hoping that this will also assist in objectivity. As a side note I'm aware that the term cult is a controversial and emotionally weighted term. It's difficult to get a good definition but I found one here that seems reasonable > A group or movement is theologically a cult if it identifies itself as > belonging to a mainstream, recognized religion — and yet rejects or > otherwise violates one or more of the central, essential teachings of > that religion. however I welcome any other definitions too.

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?

In Buddhist teachings, phenomena are said to be conditioned and impermanent. Could you explain the various types of conditions that are recognized in Buddhism, and how they contribute to the cycle of samsara and the development of individual experience? What are some of the types of conditions in the Abhidhammas or even modern understanding. Answers could include perhaps a physical condition, mental condition, conditioned by absences or so on.

Prajñākaragupta (ca. 8th–9th century) was a Buddhist philosopher of the epistemological school and the author of the Pramāṇavārttikālaṃkāra, an extensive commentary on Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārttika. In his epistemic interpretations, the wisdom of non‑duality (advaya‑jñāna) is presented as “the ultimate means of valid cognition (pramāṇa).” To quote from here :- > **At the core of Prajñākaragupta’s thought is the wisdom of non-duality > (advaya-jñana) which is the ultimate means of valid cognition > (pramāṇa).** Dharmakīrti had further defined "pramāṇa" as that which > illuminates unknown objects (ajñātārthaprakāśo vā) and as that which > is a "knowledge without deception" (avisaṃvādi jñānam). > **Prajñākaragupta states that "unknown objects" ultimately refers to the > ultimate object (paramārtha) which is a non-dual form (advaitarūpatā) > (PVA 79,15-17). This non-dual perception (advaita-dṛṣṭi) is what > ultimately leads to the end of suffering.** Prajñākaragupta identifies > it with what Dharmakīrti calls the insight (yukti) that leads to the > end of suffering (Pramāṇavārttika chapter II v. 139). Previous > commentators had mainly aligned this with not-self. Prajñākaragupta > agrees, but also gives an alternative explanation: "yukti is union > (yoga), which means that all phenomena are interconnected beyond all > differences, that is, non-duality (advaita)" (PVA 116,16-19). **For > Prajñākaragupta, all other forms of Buddhist epistemology which do not > discuss non-duality are ways to gradually lead a person to higher and > subtler levels of wisdom, culminating in the nondual cognition** > (advaitāvabodha). ---------- Questions for Discussion:- 1. Does Prajñākaragupta’s non‑dual reading implicitly reify a kind of absolute awareness or self‑like substratum that diverges from the Buddha’s teaching of anatta? Given that Prajñākaragupta uses advaitarūpatā to characterize the ultimate object of cognition and posits an ultimate lack of distinction between knower and known, is this formulation closer to a form of non‑dual eternalism rather than strict Buddhist no‑self? 2. Can his interpretation genuinely be reconciled with the early Buddhist elimination of a permanent self? ----------

> 「不許夜行，投明須到」: "Fuku yakō, Tōmyō shudō," or "Bùxǔ yèxíng, tóumíng xū dào." Meaning "Not permitted to travel at night, but must arrive by dawn." This sentence appears in a kōan in *Blue Cliff Record*. > 趙州問投子：「大死底人卻活時如何？」投子云：「不許夜行，投明須到。」 > > Jōshū asked Tōsu, “What happens to a person who died a great death, > yet in the end returned to life?” Tōsu said, “They must not go by > night. They must arrive by dawn.” In light of the discussion on kṣaṇabhaṅga (“momentary decay”) and ēkacitta (“one unit of consciousness”) as in https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/55227/32114 What is Master Jōshū actually describing? There is also another kōan from *The Transmission of the Lamp*. > 問：「百了千當時如何？」師曰：「不許夜行，投明須到。」 > > Question: “What happens when everything is > in proper order?” The Master said, “They must not go by night. They > must arrive by dawn.” What is Master Fūketsu Enshō (風穴延沼) talking about here?

I understand from the Pāli terms in Anāpānasati: - Pajānāti means “to know” (as in knowing long or short breaths). - Śikhāti means “to train” or “to cultivate.” For the first two steps of the practice, it’s clear how one “knows” the breath - simply observing the natural in/out breath without controlling it, but with the effort to know it. For the 3rd step, my understanding is that one trains to be aware of the whole body in connection with the breath. However, for the 4th step, I am unclear: How does one trains to tranquil or calm the body? Does this tranquillity arise through deliberate effort, or does it occur naturally with the right effort to watch or know the breath from earlier stages? What exactly is meant by kāyasaṅkhāraṁ (bodily formation) in this context? I would appreciate clarification on how the 3rd and 4th steps are actually trained in Anāpānasati practice.

So far as I understand the terminology, there are two levels of knowledge: 1. "conceptual knowledge" like "man" and "woman" 2. "ultimate reality" like the five khandas The importance of understanding Anatta or Anatman (egolessness) as the "ultimate reality" is explained in Access to Insight article on Egolessness: - [The Three Basic Facts of Existence III. Egolessness (Anatta)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel202.html) Anatta contemplation is about a clear understanding of egolessness. Does this insight come from Dhammanupassana (contemplation on the teachings of the Buddha)? As an example of this question, how do these two fit together: - “There is no doer, but only the doing” - The yogi should just note “seeing, seeing”.

Among the various pramāṇas, or means of valid knowledge in Indian epistemologies, it is generally accepted that Buddhism recognizes two pramāṇas. As stated thus :- > Many schools of Buddhism posit two forms of pramāṇa: > > **direct perception (pratyakṣa) and > inference (anumāna)** > > **Direct perception is a non-conceptual cognition that directly > apprehends an object, and inference is based on reasoning.** However, this approach of reliance on only two pramāṇas, coupled with the rejection of scriptural or Vedic testimony (śabda-pramāṇa), has over the time drawn criticism from numerous rival schools among which the most prominent have been the Vedāntic commentators and theologians. This may be seen for instance from a brief study of some Anucchedas of the Tattva-sandarbha, a work of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī, a Vaiṣṇava theologian and Vedāntin of the Acintya-bhedābheda school. In the relevant section, while elaborating on the epistemology of his tradition he lists the flaws with all other means of knowledge such perception and inference. Tattva Sandarbha Anuccheda 9 Therefore owing to these defects, the only valid sources of knowledge about the Absolute (the ultimate truth or God) are the Vedas or Vedic scriptures, which are considered by tradition to be apauruṣeya (authorless) since they are supposed to have manifested directly from God, perfect, and transmitted through an unbroken paramparā (disciplic succession). Further, in order to establish the superiority of scriptural authority (śabda-pramāṇa) over logical reasoning or inference, a number of proofs are cited. In the Lengthy commentary to the 10th anuccheda, it may be seen in particular that the criticism is directed at the Standpoint of the Buddhists - > The Vedas (sabda-pramana ) are the only effective means for acquiring > transcendental knowledge. **The Vedas inform us about the soul's > existence beyond the body**, about the planets of the spiritual world, > and about the Supreme Lord, , His pastimes, and other matters. All > these subjects are beyond the reach of our sensory and mental > faculties. > **Philosophers such as the Buddhists, who do not accept the Vedas, > cannot justifiably say anything positive about transcendence, let > alone the way to attain it without sabda. Sabda-pramana (i.e > Vedic/Scriptural testimony) is so important that although Vaisnavas > count Lord Buddha among the incarnations of the Lord on the strength > of Vedic testimony, they reject His philosophy because it is not based > on sabda-pramana.** ~ Commentary to Anuccheda 10 Similarly the Buddhist View of the momentariness of consciousness too is criticised Elsewhere in the same work as - > **The Vedanta explains that when a person looks at an object there > arises a particular mental state, called vrtti, which the soul > perceives. The mental state itself is not the perceiver. But the > Buddhists, lacking all knowledge about the soul, mistake this > temporary, ever-changing vrtti, which is noneternal ever-constantly > changing, for real consciousness.** This point is further clarified with > the analogy of the life air. Air is one, but air within the body has > various names, such as prana, apana, and samana, according to the > function it performs. Similarly, the soul is one, but while in the > body it manifests consciousness, which appears many-branched and > ever-changing. For example, sweetened cow's milk gives rise to > different mental states when perceived with different senses: to the > eyes it is white, to the tongue sweet, and so on. So it is only the > mental state, affected by varieties of sense perception, that appears > and disappears. The living entity is a fractional part of the Supreme > Lord, and since the Lord is conscious and eternal, the living entity > must have these qualities as well, in as much as a gold nugget shares > the qualities of the mother lode. The purpose of explaining the > conscious and eternal quality of the soul with logic and personal > experience is to help us develop an understanding of the Supersoul. ~ Commentary to Anuccheda 53.3 ---------- With respect to the Above citations, I would now like to pose some Questions:- - Given that perception and inference are indeed fallible and prone to error, how does the Buddhist tradition establish a reliable epistemological foundation for knowledge of ultimate reality (e.g., Nirvāṇa or Sunyata)? - What is the Buddhist position on scriptural authority in general, and how is reliance on an external scripture claimed to be authorless and coming directly from God via a disciplic succession, viewed in light of Buddhist pramāṇa theories? - How would Buddhist philosophers identify the main shortcomings or philosophical weaknesses in the Vedantic insistence on Vedic knowledge as the sole valid source for understanding the Absolute? - Is there an alternative epistemic framework in Buddhism that addresses the same problem of cognitive fallibility without relying on a fixed scriptural authority?

In Buddhist epistemology, Dharmakīrti develops a sophisticated theory of perception and inference, emphasizing pramāṇa (valid cognition) as the means to apprehend reality. Central to his system is the idea that perception provides direct, non-conceptual access to particulars, while inference allows us to understand universals and causal relations. At the same time In the early Buddhist texts, the Buddha too repeatedly emphasizes “seeing things as they are” (yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti), a form of direct awareness that is often described as immediate and non-conceptual. I am interested in exploring how Dharmakīrti’s framework relates to this epistemological stance of the Buddha. To what extent can Dharmakīrti’s pramāṇic approach be interpreted as a systematic elaboration of the Buddha’s notion of direct cognition? Are there points of convergence or divergence between Dharmakīrti’s epistemic theories and the original suttas?

Psychedelic substances such as psilocybin or LSD often induce experiences described as "ego death," where the usual sense of self dissolves and a feeling of unity or boundlessness arises. Some interpret these states as glimpses of spiritual truth, potentially similar to Buddhist insights into anattā (non-self) or śūnyatā (emptiness). From a Buddhist perspective, are these chemically induced experiences considered valid insights into the nature of self and reality, or are they fundamentally different from the realizations attained through traditional Buddhist practice? Are there teachings or commentaries that address the nature or value of such experiences?

dhp 352 *A master is one who has let go of all craving and clinging to the world; who has seen the truth beyond forms, yet is possessed of **a profound knowledge of words**. Such a great being can be said to have finished the task.* [Sujato Translation, with pāḷi](https://suttacentral.net/dhp352/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=true&script=latin) : Rid of craving, free of grasping, Vītataṇho anādāno, expert in the interpretation of terms, ***Niruttipadakovido;*** knowing the correct Akkharānaṁ sannipātaṁ, structure and sequence of syllables, Jaññā pubbāparāni ca; they are said to be one who bears their final body, Sa ve “antimasārīro, one of great wisdom, a great person. Mahāpañño mahāpuriso”ti vuccati.

The Varnashrama dharma (caste system) is the backbone of Brahminism (Hinduism), untouchability is a part of that social order. We all know that Gautama Buddha was against Varnashrama dharma, and rejected the Vedic religion. But unfortunately, we see caste system and untouchability in many 'Buddhist' countries. For example, the Burakumin/Eta in Japan, Baekjeong in Korea, Ragyabpa in Tibet, etc. As we know as Buddhists that the Buddha was no hindu, then why this system is also in the societies of Buddhist countries?

> 僧問藥山：「平田淺草，麈鹿成群。如何射得麈中麈？」山云：「看箭！」僧放身便倒。山云：「侍者拖出這死漢。」僧便走。山云：「弄泥團漢有什麼限？」 > > A monk asked Yakusan, “On an open plain with shallow grass, elk and deer form a herd. How does one shoot the Elk of Elks?” Yakusan said, “Watch the arrow!” The monk let himself fall. Yakusan said, “Attendants, please drag this dead fellow out.” The monk chose to walk away. Yakusan said, “Fellows who play with mud balls know no bounds.” Master Yakusan pretends to shoot an arrow. The monk in the story lets himself fall. Master Yakusan apparently was not happy with the monk’s response. What should the monk have done instead?

Nāgārjuna is often presented as systematizing or radicalizing insights already present in the Buddha’s early teachings, particularly pratītyasamutpāda and anattā.At the same time, his use of dialectical negation appears to go beyond anything explicitly stated in the early Nikāyas/Āgamas. In the early texts, dependent origination functions primarily as a causal and soteriological teaching aimed at the cessation of suffering, while ontological questions are frequently bracketed or treated pragmatically. Nāgārjuna, by contrast, seems to universalize dependent origination into a comprehensive critique of svabhāva (intrinsic existence), applying it not only to persons but to dharmas themselves. ---------- This raises several interpretive questions:- - To what extent can Nāgārjuna’s claim that “whatever is dependently arisen is empty” be grounded directly in the Buddha’s early teachings, rather than representing a later philosophical development responding to Abhidharma realism? - Does Nāgārjuna preserve the Buddha’s pragmatic and liberative intent, or does his systematic negation risk reifying emptiness into a metaphysical position precisely what the Buddha sought to avoid? - Is Nāgārjuna’s use of reductio arguments best understood as a philosophical method absent from the early canon, or can it be seen as a formalization of the Buddha’s dialogical strategies (e.g., the Kaccānagotta Sutta’s rejection of existence and non-existence)?