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?

Thoughts about mine and things should be in this way,about children ,husband and relatives,it's the personality view. That is developed in our own mind.so we inflicted our own wounds. So we were in our own prison. So when this thinking stops personality view has destroyed. Isn't it?

Until now I thought that Buddhism teaches that a sense of self is bad in all cases. Now I read that developing a sense of self around good actions can increase motivation for our spiritual development, and that we can choose to see 'not self' in bad past actions, and see 'self' in beneficial past actions. From this I gather that it could be beneficial to develop a sense of self. In my practice I don't really have a sense of self around good deeds yet. In general I don't really have much of a sense of self, perhaps low self esteem. Should this change? Does Buddhism encourage a sense of self around skillful actions to be developed?

I came across a Vaishnava critique of Buddhism which questions whether Buddhist ethics can have a stable foundation without having the concept of devotion to a supreme God. Quoting the excerpt from here > **what is the problem with Buddhism?** > > Before the advent of Sri Shankara Acharya, Lord Buddha (Sriman > nArAyaNa Himself on the authority of srimad BhAgavata PurANa) has > given an illusory theory for the people of material consciousness and > made them adharmic with His excellent philosophy (Lord is beyond our > perception and His actions are in-conceivable without guidant of > Acharyas). He gave a philosophy based on moral laws, athiesm, denial > of vedas and illusory "nirvANa(viodness)". His instructions are somuch > attractive that any person who is not adherant to vedas and devotion > unto the Lord gets easily carried away. He lures unintelligent men by > saying only intelligent men can understand His philosophy. That > enables people not to investigate His philosophy critically and > accept. Moreover, on the surface, one cannot find fault as it is based > on moral laws like non-violence and truthfulness. Even today many > people think philonthropic actions and being good is ultimate purpose > of life. But they miss the critical point why should one do either > philonthropic or good works. They have no clue what actual good is. > The purpose of all good actions is to attract the attention of the > Lord and get pure devotion unto Him. > > When we do not develop love for the Supreme Lord, we lose all our > morals and dharma at some point or the other. We are never independant > of Him. As we can see today, in countries like china, people lost > their own religion, forgot all good (their own moral laws), consume > more meat (including frogs and snakes) than any other country, and > work day and night like machines to improve material comforts. This > proves, how it is most important to have mercy of the Lord for the > living entity to have ethical life and subsequent desire for eternal > bliss (liberation). Lord doesnot allow selfish people to serve Him, > for He accepts only unselfish, unbroken devotional service. We should > know from this example that acting in all good ways is only to develop > love for the Lord. According to this critique, without divine guidance and devotion, ethical conduct eventually collapses, and moral laws lose their meaning. How would Buddhists respond to this critique and provide a solid basis for morality and ethical behavior within their philosophical framework, given that Buddhism does not ground ethics in pleasing or serving a personal God?

There is no permanent unchanging self. Are past actions therefore "not self"? In my practice I find that seeing past actions as not self allows me to contemplate on them better.

I came across this article on Indica Today which argues that traditional Buddhist chronologies (e.g. placing the Buddha’s nirvāṇa around 500-483 BCE) might involve a significant error, and that his historical period could be shifted by as much as 1200 years. The article mentions contradictions between Theravāda chronologies, Puranic records, and historical/archaeological data. Questions:- - How do Buddhist traditions themselves explain or reconcile these discrepancies in dating the Buddha’s life? - Is there any textual or archaeological evidence from within the Buddhist tradition that supports such a large chronological shift (e.g. Buddha at 1704 BCE rather than 500 BCE)? - How do Buddhist academicians assess these claims in comparison with the Ashokan inscriptions and other historical anchors?

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?

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.

Is it fundamentalism if Buddhists believe Buddha's path is the only path, and that all other spiritual traditions or sects are false? And if so, does it exist much in Buddhism? By fundamentalism, I mean a person believing that their path is the only path, for them and others who believe like them. I.e. can a Buddhist see another spiritual tradition as valid, even if it is not Buddhism? Such as an agnostic or a mystic from that tradition?

What is the most important thing or idea about Buddhism? "The Buddha dealt with that which is most important", compared to the other spiritual traditions, according Rupert Sheldrake. So, what is most important in Buddhism?

Is there a relationship there? sankharoti asavas

Temporarily blockage of sexual excitement, give knowledge there's no permanent soul,body and mind consciousness are impermanent. Arising and cease. Sankara and upadana were impermanent. Does this understanding is wisdom?while doing walking meditation without hearing external sounds and thinking could follow the walking? Is this enough to balance the five spiritual faculties and free from rebith in lower realms?

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”.

What was that word about a Buddha's concentration? Is not easy to remember, thank you..[So you might remember...

Some major religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have a *Creation Story*, which describes how God created the universe. These stories describe how a deity created the earth and then the first man and woman, who are regarded as the father and mother of all mankind. Does Buddhism also have a similar *Creation Story*?

I read the [following](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/53819/what-are-the-major-deviations-from-the-buddha-s-original-teachings-in-later-budd#comment88883_53821) on the internet: > `new scholarly Western fads particularly created by the Australian > Ajahn Brahm/Sujato sect and also embraced by American Bhikkhu Bodhi.` > There's no need to insult and smear the Sangha. Have some integrity, > your answers referenced the translation works by these reputable > scholars, yet at the same time you insinuate and display contempt at > them Below is two translations of AN 3.76 by Sujato. The 1st is how I recall the translation was for a number of years: Repeat of the above, otherwise click on the above to expand: The 2nd translation by Sujato below is what I surprisingly read for the first time, just now. My impression is Sujato recently changed his translation, including replacing the translation of "**re**birth" with "**re**generation". Next is Thanissaro: > Ananda, if there were no **kamma ripening** in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned? Thus **kamma** is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the > moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & > fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus > there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. Next is Bhikkhu Bodhi: Which translation of AN 3.76 is correct and what are the implications of these translation variations?

I read the following former multi-year translation by Sujato on the internet, about "reincarnation": Today, for the first time, I read a new translation by Sujato, using the word "regeneration" instead of "reincarnation": What does the term "regeneration" mean in Buddha's teaching? Please also provide some other examples if possible?

Buddhism has developed into many schools and traditions since the time of the Buddha, each with its own interpretations, practices, and philosophical systems. While this diversity is valuable in some respects, it also raises the concern that certain ideas or practices may have strayed from what the Buddha himself originally taught. This raises the question of what counts as a significant deviation from the original doctrines of Dhamma and how such differences can be identified. I would also like to know how a lay follower can recognize these divergences in a clear and practical way, and how one might remain faithful to the spirit of the Buddha’s message without falling into sectarian arguments.

A lay person that reaches arahatship/Nibbana is said to either take up robe within 7 days or die, since that state of detachment makes household duties unbearable. Dhammapada 155-156 warns the lay youth of regret in old age from failure to accrue wealth. It feels a bit like Buddhism is gatekeeping the holy life, shoving the lay person out the door and telling them to just "do your lay stuff, like uh, have sex or something", which feels a bit disheartening. To what extent does Buddhism discourage the lay person from seeking liberation from suffering, and just encouraging them to participate in the rat race?

What is the source of the Buddha telling his disciples about why Maha Moggallan had died. Moggallan died in the laps of the Buddha? Is it so?