French philosopher René Descartes is famous for saying "*Je pense, donc je suis.*" (I think, therefore I am.). Is this in fact the exact opposite of the concept of the Buddha nature, with something like "I am. But unfortunately I can think." being the more appropriate idea? --- Descartes seems to be saying that because he can think he is aware that he exists. My (possibly mistaken) impression of Buddha nature is that everything exists, but thinking about one's own existence can disrupt or interfere with that existence.

The following Tibetan Buddhist (thangka) painting is a version of a visual representation of the 9 Stages (~11 stages) of Samatha meditation. Who is the *original* artist who painted it? It would have been painted about a millennium ago or so.

I live with my mother in her house. There have been a mouse for a few months, living in the ceiling of my bedroom, and since a few weeks, it has been a nuisance for it scratches something, day and night, to the point of preventing me to sleep, even when wearing ear plugs. The mouse does not seem to understand that it is not alone in the house and that it causes distress. I remember that There were mice long before and the rat poison was successful, until another mouse set in. They always find their way in, and always end up breeding and making a noisy mess. I cannot access the ''thermal material'' which is between the ceiling of my bedroom and the attic, because the attic has been covered up by some thermal blanket to better protect the house thermally. I do not wish to kill the mouse with some rat poison per se. but I also fear that the mouse could chew some wires, electrical and telephonic, which pass above the ceiling and causing damage to the house. I also fear that the mouse breeds leading to even more mice, especially if I end up killing them. There are cats in the neighbourhood, and it is not clear to whom they belong, but they clearly did not catch the mouse thus far. I cannot get a cat myself, since there is no place and no means to sustain having a cat. I do not know the path to the garden that the mouse takes to leave the house, because there are plants and small trees preventing me to watch the ground and weed. Is there another solution than killing it in disposing some rat poison, in order to stop the noises and be assured that the house will not be damaged ?

Some drugs, like ecstasy, help build empathy and help our mind see things from a different point of view. What about if meditation is the obsolete ways to see enlightment and perhaps drugs are the easier ways?

I know it's discouraged for Buddhists to intoxicate their body, but were there any known cases of monks using psychedelic drugs intentionally in the past?

I have head psychedelic drugs described as a gateway that can lead people to Buddhism, and to very powerful meditation practice. I have also heard the drugs were frowned upon by ancient Buddhist teachings. What do you know about the ancient and modern Buddhist attitudes toward these drugs?

There’s a new theory, which I saw many Vaiṣṇava groups propagating, of the 2 buddhas: Viṣṇu incarnate Ādi Buddha and the other being Śākyamuni of Buddhism, as two seperate personalities, based on the differences in Buddha stories from the Vaiṣṇava texts and Śākyamuni’s story in Buddhist texts. I have briefly talked about it in the addendum to this answer as well. They cite the details mentioned in the Bhāgvata Puruāṇa to claim that Viṣṇu-incarnate Buddha was a different person born centuries before the Gautama Buddha, gave teachings of compassion and leaving animal slaughter, then centuries later Siddhārtha came to bodh gaya, gained enlightenment there as the place had increased spiritual potency. To Quote from this article - > tatah kalau sampravritte sammohaya sura-dvisham > buddho namnanjana-sutah kikateshu bhavishyati > (srimad-bhagavatam 1.3.24) > > “Thereafter, in the twenty-first manvantara at the beginning of > Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as **Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, > in Kikata Pradesa (the province of present day Gaya-Bihar)**, just for the purpose > of deluding those who are envious of the faithful demigods.” As anyone can see that the stated birth place does not coincide with the Birth place of the historical Gautama Buddha. To supposedly reconcile this apparent contradiction, they cite the theory that the Vishnu incarnate buddha was a different person from Gautama buddha for which they cite the following proof- > Thus, Sugata Buddha and Sunyavadi (Sakyasimha) Buddha are not the same > person. Further evidence is found in Mr. H.T.Colebrooke’s Amarakosha, > published at Ramapura in 1807. It is written in Chapter 21, Page 178 > of Lalitavistara-grantha that Gautama Buddha performed penances at the > same place as the previous Buddha (Vishnu-avatara Buddha). Maybe it is > for this reason that in later ages he and Lord Buddha are considered > as being one: > > esha dharanimunde purvabuddhasanasthah > samartha dhanurgrihitva sunya nairatmavanaih > klesaripum nihatva drishtijalanca bhitva-siva > virajamsokam prapsyate bodhimagryam What's more to support this notion, they cite even a Buddhist text named Lankavatara-sutra - > There is an authentic Buddhist book, Lankavatara-sutra, in which > Ravana, the king of Lanka, prays to Jina’s son, the ancient Lord > Buddha, and to all the Buddhas and Buddhas’ sons who would appear in > the future, via this eulogy (stava): > > atha ravano lankadhipatih gathagiten anugayati sma > lankavatarasutram vaih purvabuddhanuvarnitam > smarami purvakaih buddhairjinaputra-puraskritaih > putrametannigadyate bhagavanapi bhashatam > bhavishyantyanapate kale buddha buddhasutasca ye > > Therefore, this source leaves no doubt that the ancient avatara-Buddha > and the modern Gautama Buddha are not the same person. Questions - 1. As I saw from the Answers of this question , there is indeed a conception of many Buddhas in the Buddhist literature. Does any of the buddhist literature mention any account one of the former buddhas taking birth in Present Day Gaya (Kikata-pradesa)? 2. Since it is Gaya alone where Gautama Buddha attained enlightenment, Does Gautama buddha mention any of the former buddhas taking birth in that place in any of his discourses? As the Buddha was omniscient, he would have certainly known about the former buddhas and if any of them had actually taken birth in kikata pradesa (aka present day Gaya).

I've become aware through sutta study that avijja (the fetter of ignorance) refers to ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Is there a specific canonical sutta that says that avijja is ignorance of the anatta doctrine? I know inferentially if anatta is part of the Four Noble Truths, then that would follow, however sometimes the various connections are hard to hold in the mind at the same time. Thanks.

I was reading an article about *The Samaññaphala Sutta* and came across this line: *This [sutta] is placed in juxtaposition to the Buddhist view of the teachings of rival philosophical teachers of the time, showing how the Buddha — in contradistinction to the inflexible, party-line approach of his contemporaries — presented his teaching in a way that was pertinent and sensitive to the needs of his listeners.* Who were these "contemporaries" and what were they teaching?

Professor VV Gokhale in a paper titled "The Vedanta-Philosophy described by Bhavya in his Madhyamakahrdaya" (Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1958) discusses a work named mAdhyamakahridaya by Bhavya, a sixth century mAdhyamaka buddhist. In the discussion, He refers to a situation where the mahAyAna school is criticised as being similar to vedAnta in the said work. In reply, Apparently Bhavya says that whatever is good in the upaniShads has also been taught by the Buddha. To cite- > In one of the chapters of the **Madhyamakahridaya** dealing with the > hInayAna objections to mahAyAna, the hInayAna-buddhist criticises the > mahAyAna buddhist saying;- > > **न बुद्धोक्तिर्महायानं सूत्रान्तादावसंग्रहात् | मार्गान्तरोपदेषात् वा > यथा वेदान्तदर्शनम् ||** > > The mAhAyAna teaching was not spoken of by the Buddha, either because > it is not included in the sUtrAntas, or because like the vedAnta > darshana, it teaches heretic paths to salvation. > > To this attack, the mahAyAnist replies - > > **वेदान्ते च हि यत् सूक्तम् तत् सर्वं बुद्धभाषितम् | दृष्टान्तन्यूनता > तस्मात् संदिग्धं वा परीक्ष्यताम् ||** > > **Whatever is well said in the vedAnta (upaniShads) has been taught by > the Buddha.** The various examples cited by the hInayAna are faulty and > what is doubtful must be examined. Questions- 1. Is that a unanimous view among the Mahayana Buddhists that Buddha's teachings were inspired from vedanta? 2. How would adherents from other schools of buddhism view the statements of Bhavya?

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?