A few posts have been widely circulating on social media citing the following quotes from the Mahayana buddhist Lalitavistara sutra allegedly claiming gautama buddha to be the incarnation of the God Vishnu > Translation of the devanagari in the 2nd image - Your son is handsome, > endowed with brilliance, possessed of the 32 auspicious marks, and > filled with the power of Narayan (Vishnu). > > ~ Lalita Vistara, Janmaparivarta 66 Are the Above Quotes really mentioned in the Text? Are the corresponding interpretations correct? If yes, do Mahayana Buddhists really accept the conception of Buddha being an Avatar of Vishnu?

In studying the philosophy of Madhyamaka, especially the works of Nagarjuna such as the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, one repeatedly encounters the claim that the Madhyamaka does not advance any positive metaphysical thesis of its own. Instead, it proceeds via prasaṅga or reductio arguments to dismantle all views, culminating in the doctrine of Śūnyatā, often glossed as the emptiness of all dharmas, including views themselves. However, this raises what seems to be a serious philosophical difficulty. If all views are empty, and if even pramāṇas or valid means of knowledge are ultimately undermined as having the nature of sunyata, then does this not render Nāgārjuna’s own project self-referentially incoherent? That is, if the very tools of epistemic justification are denied any ultimate validity, on what basis can Madhyamaka arguments claim to be compelling or even meaningful? This concern is not merely modern.Many Rival traditions ridiculed such a stance. To Quote for instance from a paraphrasing of the paramatabhanga of the Visistadvaita theologian Veṅkaṭanātha, also known popularly as vedanta desika I am particularly interested to see how this issue is treated within different strands of Madhyamaka, such as the Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika interpretations, and whether later commentators offer systematic responses to these classical critiques from rival schools.

In several contemplative traditions, such as Advaita Vedanta, there is the idea of a “witness-consciousness” or “knower-consciousness” that stands apart from thoughts, sensations, and experiences. This witnessing awareness is often treated as the 'true' or 'pure' Self, something unchanging and fundamental that observes the flux of mental and physical phenomena. Analogously, in Kashmir Śaivism, philosophers like Utpaladeva argue in works such as Ajada Pramatra Siddhi that there is an 'ultimate knower' which must also be inherently sentient, self-revealing consciousness, and not insentient or conditioned under dependent origination, explicitly critiquing Buddhist positions such as Vijñānavāda on the nature of consciousness and selfhood. (The text is quite short and can be read here and here ) ---------- Given all this, I am curious how various Buddhist schools engage with or respond to this idea of a witness-consciousness or the knower-consciousness. If such a witnessing consciousness is rejected, how is it explained phenomenologically? Is the sense of being a “knower” understood as merely a conceptual imputation on the five aggregates, or could it be interpreted as some kind of emergent property arising from them? Alternatively, do any Buddhist schools come close to accepting something like a reflexive or self-knowing awareness without committing to a metaphysical self? I am especially interested in how different traditions such as Theravāda, Madhyamaka, and Yogācāra would approach this issue, and whether any schools of buddhism had direct historical engagements or debates with thinkers like Utpaladeva or similar arguments from non-Buddhist traditions.

In early Buddhist texts, there are instances when Nirvana is explicitly referred to as an “element” (nibbāna-dhātu) for instance in the Nibbānadhātusutta. Ud 8.1 likewise seems to refer to it as a sense object (ayatana) This terminology is confusing to me. If Nirvana is the cessation of all aggregates and not a conditioned phenomenon, calling it an “element” makes it sound like some kind of ultimate existent or metaphysical substrate. How should the term “element” (dhātu) be understood in this context. Is it meant in a strictly technical sense within early Buddhist thought, or is it more of a conventional designation for the cessation of processes rather than something that exists as a thing.

In AN 8.51 The following passages are to be seen - > A nun should not abuse or insult a monk in any way. This principle > should be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not > transgressed so long as life lasts. > > **From this day forth it is forbidden for nuns to criticize monks, but > it is not forbidden for monks to criticize nuns.** This principle should > be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not transgressed > so long as life lasts Is this rule understood within Broader Buddhist tradition as an authentic teaching of the Buddha, and if so, what rationale is given for allowing criticism in only one direction?

Please give a clear simple example of how this looks in a practical way without quoting suttas. I just want a practical example. Thanks > The object of consciousness, or mind-object, that arises has to be of > ultimate reality, not conventional reality. We must be able to > differentiate between what is absolute reality, or paramattha dhamma > and what is conventional reality, or sammuti.

Buddhist accounts frequently assert that phenomena (dharmas) are empty of intrinsic nature (niḥsvabhāva, asvabhāva), and that their arising, functioning, and cessation occur solely through dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). However, causal efficacy seems to require at least minimal stability of a phenomenon’s defining features. This raises some questions. 1. If dharmas have no intrinsic nature (niḥsvabhāva), how can they still perform functions ? Doesn't causal power require at least some stable feature, and if not, what does “causal efficacy” actually mean for empty dharmas? 2. Dharmas are described as momentary and empty. How do empty, momentary events form a causal continuum (saṃtāna) without presupposing some underlying stability?

In discussions of ethics, many adherents of theistic traditions, whether it is those who follow Abrahamic scriptures or the Hindu Vedas - tend to argue that objective morality cannot exist without divinely revealed scripture or a creator deity who grounds moral truth. Since Buddhism does not posit such a creator God, I would like to understand how Buddhist traditions address this type of claim at the level of canonical doctrine. In case Buddhist traditions may support a form of objective or universally binding morality, what is identified in the texts as its grounding? I am seeking solid reference-based answers. Cite and quote from any Buddhist sources, including the Nikāyas or Āgamas, Vinaya materials, Abhidharma texts, or Mahāyāna sūtras, that could be interpreted as defending a form of objective morality without appealing to divine revelation. It is advisable for the answers focus on textual evidence and avoid writing answers based purely off modern philosophical speculation devoid of any citations unless it is clearly tied to recognized canonical or commentarial sources.

In Zen practice, what is the difference between genuinely being present and subtly ‘trying to be present’? How can one recognise the difference in direct experience?

Growing up, I had a general understanding—based on lay textbooks and common interpretations that the dharmic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism all believe in reincarnation: the idea that an individual is reborn into a new body, either human or animal, after physical death of the body. As I became more interested in Buddhism and tried exploring it more deeply, I noticed that different Buddhists seem to explain this concept in very different ways. Some use the word "reincarnation" and appear to mean it quite literally, while others insist that "rebirth" in Buddhism is not the same as reincarnation, especially since Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent self. This has left me quite confused. Is rebirth just another term for reincarnation, or does Buddhism teach something fundamentally different? What is the correct way to understand the concept of rebirth in Buddhist teachings?

Are there visual representations of the Tripitaka? Its threefold division suggests a correspondence of vinaya to "body", sutta to "soul", abhidhamma to "mind", a rather broad correspondence that could be linked to many "threefold divisions" of symbolic language.
So I am asking for artistic works that focus explicitly on the Tripitaka, especially in Tibetan art.

In the trisvabhava theory, is the consummate nature inflected by past present and future conditions? Or is it always the same and independent of causal conditions?

The 8th precept in vipassana says to abstain from using high or luxurious beds. So should I sleep on the floor and not on a bed?

Can you be a Buddhist and believe in another religion at the same time?

In Buddhist doctrine, the teaching of anattā denies the existence of a permanent, unchanging soul or self that persists across lifetimes. At the same time, Buddhism maintains that beings are “heirs to their karma” and that intentional actions in one life condition experiences in future lives. Canonical Explanations of rebirth describe this continuity in terms of causal processes, such as dependent origination or a stream of conditioned phenomena, rather than the transmigration of an enduring entity. In other other philosophical systems that believe in reincarnation, take hinduism for example, rebirth is explained through the concept of a subtle body (sūkṣma śarīra) that survives death and carries karmic impressions (saṃskāras) across lifetimes. This provides a mechanism for why the karmic results experienced in a later life belong exactly to the same individual who performed the actions earlier. Buddhism rejects the existence of such a persisting entity. Rebirth is usually explained instead as a causal process (often compared to one flame lighting another). However, this raises a difficulty. If there is no enduring self or carrier connecting the two lives: In what sense is the person in the next life the one who experiences the results of the earlier person's karma? Why would this not effectively mean that the karma of one person is being experienced by another? In other words, without some form of persisting substrate that carries karma across lives, what prevents karmic results from being morally misattributed between different individuals? More broadly, if there is no persisting subject that carries karmic responsibility across lives, would this not make the operation of karma appear morally arbitrary or unfair?

Many teachers (Osho) have asked to do vigorous exercise before vipassana , IS it advisable and OK ?

In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead. After checking with doctors etc, nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. For more than the past 2 years, I meditated daily for 20-30 minutes or more. I have read some articles online that say that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared. \ But as I stopped meditating, I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had before, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this.

What is the main basic difference between Hinduism and Buddhism regarding life after death?

I'm looking for a slightly better theoretical understanding of "crazy wisdom", as if that's possible. I've seen two superficially-sensible mentions of it on this site. - [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/25658/254) -- > If you knew what is "Spiritual Snobbism" and "Spiritual Ego" and why they are extremely dangerous, you would appreciate why some teachers go a loooong way towards shedding off any traces of that, even at the expense of hurting their public image (Trungpa) and making fools of themselves (Dalai Lama). Scandalous behavior is part of a longstanding and very respected tradition called "Crazy Wisdom" that aims to "transcend the dualistic view of repulsive and nonrepulsive" in student's mind and melt the spiritual ego. - [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/20701/254) (quoting Chogyam Trungpa) -- > The rest of The Hundred Thousand Songs deals with Milarepa's development as a teacher and his relationships with his students. Toward the end of his life he had completely perfected the transmutation process to the point where he could be called the Vidyadhara or "Holder of the Crazy Wisdom." No longer could he be swayed by the winds of hope and fear. The gods and goddesses and demons, his passions and their external projections, had been completely subjugated and transformed. Now his life was a continual dance with the dakinis. > Finally Milarepa reached the "old dog" stage, his highest attainment. People could tread on him, use him as a road, as earth; he would always be there. He transcended his own individual existence so that, as we read his last teachings, there is a sense of the universality of Milarepa, the example of enlightenment. I suspect it's specifically-Tibetan, perhaps there are some pretty eccentric Zen teachers too. So some questions: - Is there a notable difference between "crazy wisdom", "just plain crazy", and, "undisciplined, predatory, sociopathic"? - What's the 'right' way to act or react or view, if any, if you meet with or even are such a one? - Does it have a specific direction (guiding light), or purpose (destination)? - Does it have any limits, precepts, actions that wouldn't do? And why *not* those, to be clear? - If someone appears to be, for example, homeless, drug-addict, alcoholic, prostitute, thief, con-man, bully, rather mad -- are these states distinguishable from crazy wisdom? - Is there any particular reason to call it "long standing and *very respected*" -- is the principal reason, that some people are very respectful of *everyone*? Or is it, not that they teach a new dhamma but that they're willing to bring that to a new unpromising audience? I don't know. If my questions sound insane and horribly rude, it's I must be deeply ignorant of the subject ... sorry! Hoping to learn better. I gathered that Trungpa for example *did* hurt *his* public image -- stories I've read of *him*, presented as an exemplar of crazy wisdom behaviour, are at least a superficial reminder of remarkable or 'anti-social' behaviour of other people one can meet -- social outcasts; 'underdogs'.

I'm at the end of my rope mentally on this topic and I figured I try here. The question is based on another one I asked on the main philosophy thread: [Does Buddhism say that you are "everything"?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/136116/does-buddhism-say-that-you-are-everything/136136?noredirect=1#comment440151_136136) on Philosophy Stack Exchange. I don't know if you can read the medium article but the short version is that the guy says you don't exist/ nothing exists because nothing can exist in a void. That everything is dependent on something else and nothing has an independent existence. This leads him to then say everything is one, or something like that. I quoted the relevant segment in the thread. When I ask others I get various responses, like saying "everything is one" is a misunderstanding of the teachings, to saying that dependent arising doesn't mean nothing exists. I don't really get it. If you read the comments in the medium article I'm not sure they get it either. The whole thing has me seeing life as pointless, because if nothing exists then there is nothing to do. It's got me apathetic to myself, people, things, because none of it "Exists" and it's all one. I've met others who don't feel or think this way but I really don't know how else to look at it. I mean if "I" and others don't exist then it doesn't matter what happens to me or other people right? I just don't understand, I'd appreciate explanations in the simplest way you can put it if it's possible. I've been in and out of Buddhism for years and I just cannot grasp what the teachings say, let alone when others interpret it.