I would like to know what is defined as "Patigha" (Skt. "Pratigha"), and how it varies from "Dosa" (Skt. "Dvesha"). Thank you.

In this answer , a user writes: > The Buddhist scriptures attributed to the Buddha contain > contradictions, obvious frauds, obvious later-day insertions, etc., > therefore there can be no scriptural authority in Buddhism; apart from > what can be verified for oneself as being true & real that leads to > the ending of suffering. This raises the question:- How can one objectively determine which parts of the Buddhist scriptures, particularly the suttas are likely to be original teachings of the Buddha, and which may be later interpolations or corruptions? What criteria are used in this process? Are there scholarly or traditional methods that help identify interpolations, such as historical analysis, linguistic patterns, consistency with core teachings, or comparisons across early textual traditions? Additionally, how can we be sure that what some modern practitioners or scholars label as later additions were not already part of the original oral tradition? Why could some of these elements not be understood through reinterpretation rather than being dismissed outright? Are there critical editions of the suttas or major academic resources that address this issue? I am interested in perspectives based on traditional commentaries, scriptural analysis, and modern scholarship.

A blogger writing under the name of 'Durga Bhakti Tāraṅgiṇī' has published an article in which Vajrayāna Buddhism is directly accused of outright plagiarising deities and theological concepts from the Śākta and Śaiva streams of Āgamic Hinduism. According to the author, Vajrayāna did not merely absorb superficial cultural elements. It is accused of deliberately lifting and distorting core elements of the Āgamic traditions. To quote directly from their article - > Vajrayāna, a later Buddhist sect was influenced by Śaivism and > Śaktism. Rather than influencing others, it stole many concepts from > Āgamic cultures. Ancient Buddhism didn't observe Āgamic culture. Upon > entering Eastern India, it became influenced by Āgamic sects ( > Ḍāmarika, Kāpālika, Śākta, Kaula, Śaiva). They started to worship > various Devatās and Devīs. Thereafter they tried to destroy real > Āgamic rituals, sculptures and concepts. Here are some evidences of > their destructions. And further: > **the concepts of Pañca Dhyānībuddhas (Vajrōcana, Akṣobhya, > Ratnasambhava, Amitābha and Amoghasiddhi) came from the five forms of > Sadāśiva (Īśāna, Sadyojāta, Tatpuruṣa, Aghōra and Vāmadeva). They > destroyed the Rudra Khaṇḍa of Śivaliṅga and made the idols of Pañca > Dhyānībuddhas on the Yonīpīṭha or Gaurīpaṭṭa**. The author includes the Bodhisattva Tārā in this purported list of deities involved in iconographic plagiarism. > Vajrayānī Buddhists worship a different iconography of Tārādevī. She > is green in color and she has two hands. Except her, they also worship > 21 forms of Goddess Tārā. But the ironic fact is, the Green Tārā > iconography was also stolen from Śākta Śāstras This line of argumentation, which is not without precedent in polemical literature, raises significant questions for those versed in the historical evolution of Vajrayāna doctrine and praxis. The article cites a number of scholars and textual references to support its thesis of ideological and artistic borrowing. I would respectfully request insight from those deeply familiar with the doctrinal, historical, and ritual development of Vajrayāna Buddhism and comparative theology to offer clarification or rebuttal to the above claims based on historical sources and textual references.

I’m interested in understanding the religious and devotional practices that may have been part of Siddhartha Gautama's life before he undertook his renunciate life and became the Buddha. Specifically: Are there any historical or textual references indicating that Siddhartha Gautama himself, or members of his immediate family (such as his father Suddhodana, mother Māyā etc), participated in worship of deities or followed any theistic religious practices prior to his renunciation? If so, which deities were venerated, and are there any specific suttas, commentaries, or canonical sources that mention this? Additionally, was deity worship a common practice within the socio-religious environment of Kapilavastu at that time? I’m looking for references from early Buddhist texts (Pāli Canon, Āgamas, or later commentarial traditions if relevant) or scholarly interpretations that shed light on this aspect.

DN 15 mentions the following eight kinds of emancipations: > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “Possessed of form, one sees forms. This is the first emancipation. > > “Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally. This is > the second emancipation. > > “One is intent only on the beautiful. This is the third emancipation. > > “With the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, > with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding > perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of > space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and remains > in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This is the fifth > emancipation.** > > “With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of > consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is the sixth > emancipation. > > “With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one > enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception. This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception > nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation of > perception and feeling. This is the eighth emancipation.** > > “Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward order, > in reverse order, in forward and reverse order, when he attains them > and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he wants, and for as > long as he wants, when through the ending of effluents he enters and > remains in the effluent-free release of awareness and release of > discernment, having directly known it and realized it for himself in > the here and now, he is said to be a monk released in both ways. And > as for another release in both ways, higher or more sublime than this, > there is none.” The Chāndogya Upaniṣad describes Brahman-realization in the following terms: > यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ > यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पं यो वै भूमा तदमृतमथ > यदल्पं तन्मर्त्य्ं स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि यदि वा न > महिम्नीति ॥ ७.२४.१ ॥ > > yatra nānyatpaśyati nānyacchṛṇoti nānyadvijānāti sa bhūmātha > yatrānyatpaśyatyanyacchṛṇotyanyadvijānāti tadalpaṃ yo vai bhūmā > tadamṛtamatha yadalpaṃ tanmartyṃ sa bhagavaḥ kasminpratiṣṭhita iti sve > mahimni yadi vā na mahimnīti || 7.24.1 || > > **Sanatkumāra said: ‘Bhūmā [the infinite] is that in which one sees > nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows [i.e., finds] nothing > else.** But alpa [the finite] is that in which one sees something else, > hears something else, and knows something else. That which is infinite > is immortal, and that which is finite is mortal.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, > what does bhūmā rest on?’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘It rests on its own > power—or not even on that power [i.e., it depends on nothing else]’. Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1 similarly, > यदा पञ्चावतिष्ठन्ते ज्ञानानि मनसा सह । बुद्धिश्च न विचेष्टते तामाहुः > परमां गतिम् ॥ १०॥ > > yadā pañcāvatiṣṭhante jñānāni manasā saha . buddhiśca na viceṣṭate > tāmāhuḥ paramāṃ gatim > > When the five instruments of knowledge(senses of perception) stand still, together with the > mind and when the intellect does not move, that is called the parama gati (Supreme > State). Katha Upanishad 2.3.10 Would the realization of Brahman or the attainment of the highest state as described in these Upaniṣadic passages correspond to the eighth emancipation in the sutta, particularly as it pertains to the cessation of perception? If not, is there a more accurate mapping within the eightfold scheme : perhaps one of the immaterial attainments or an earlier emancipation?

In various sources belonging to non Buddhist traditions that have historically been rivals to Buddhism like Vedanta and Nyaya, one often finds claims that their philosophers defeated Buddhist thinkers in formal debates. These accounts are often cited to highlight the intellectual strength and argumentative success of their respective schools over buddhism. I am interested in knowing whether Buddhist sources such as texts or inscriptions contain similar records of Buddhist scholars successfully engaging and defeating prominent non-Buddhist philosophers from vedanta or nyaya backgrounds in philosophical debates. Are there any such documented instances from the Buddhist side, and if so, could you provide references or examples?

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?

Science categorize physical world in to solid,liquid,gas and energy(thermal,kinetic,nuclear,radiation etc....) when it analyze, prove that nothing more than those three state of material and energy and science has already proven the interconnection of energy and matter(in nuclear technology). Also the three state of matter is conditioned by energy.E.g when you apply heat(energy) to ice (solid) it will convert into water(liquid) and further reach steam(gas). Once we consider four great elements patavi,apo,thejo,vayo; is it an equivalent of above scientific categorization?

The Jagannath temple of Puri currently is one of the most notable Vaishnava hindu temples, wherein the deity is worshipped as Vishnu or Krishna. Many puranic texts such as brahma purana and skanda purana too mention the site as a Vaishnavite pilgrimage. However it is worth noting that certain authorities, religious or non religious have been at many occasions been pointing out that the jagannatha temple was originally buddhist which was later hinduised and given its present form. Even Swami Vivekananda, A hindu saint admits this in one occasion. Quoting from the Complete works of Swami Vivekananda ---------- Questions - 1. Are there any ancient historical mentions, preferably in buddhist literature that assert that the site was originally a buddhist temple? 2. Are there any archaeological evidences that point out that the site was originally buddhist and was later hinduised as Swami vivekananda says?

Philosophers of mind, such as David Chalmers, now recognize three general approaches to the question – what is consciousness? 1. **Materialism** - Materialism is the view that the mind is what the brain does. This is often stated as the mind is caused by the brain. The brain is the physical substance, while the mind or consciousness is a process that emerges from the brain. 2. **Dualism** - Dualism is the position that consciousness is something separate from the brain and not entirely caused by it. It may be a separate property of the universe (property dualism) or be something beyond the confines of our material universe. Whatever it is, it does not reduce to the firing of neurons in the brain, which cannot, in the opinion of dualists, explain subjective experience. 3. **Idealism** - The third position, the one is idealism – the claim that consciousness is all there is and the physical universe, including the brain, is a manifestation of consciousness. Explaining the position, Bernardo Kastrup uses the metaphor of a river, where the flowing water is consciousness. The material world is like a whirlpool in the stream – the whirlpool has a definite existence in time and space, you can point to it and say, “there it is,” but it is comprised entirely of the stuff of consciousness. Which position is the most closely aligned with Buddhist schools?

According to buddhism, there exists 31 "planes of existence". > Theravada Buddhist cosmology describes the 31 planes of existence in which rebirth takes place. The order of the planes are found in various discourses of the Gautama Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka. For example, in the Saleyyaka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya the Buddha mentioned the planes above the human plane in ascending order.[1] In several sūtras in the Anguttara Nikaya, the Buddha described the causes of rebirth in these planes in the same order. In Buddhism, the devas are not immortal gods that play a creative role in the cosmic process. They are simply elevated beings who had been reborn in the celestial planes as a result of their words, thoughts, and actions. Usually, they are just as much in bondage to delusion and desire as human beings, and as in need of guidance from the Enlightened One. The Buddha is the "teacher of devas and humans (satthadevamanussanam). The devas come to visit the Buddha in the night. The Devatasamyutta and the Devaputtasamyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya gives a record of their conversations. The devaputtas are young devas newly arisen in heavenly planes, and devatas are mature deities. > >There are more than 10,000 crore (100 billion) solar systems in our Galaxy, and more than 10,000 crore (100 billion) galaxies in our Universe. There are many Universes in space. Past and future lives may occur on other planets. The data for the 31 planes of existence in samsara are compiled from the Majjhima Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Digha Nikaya, Khuddaka Nikaya, and others. The 31 planes of existence can be perceived by a Buddha's Divine eye (dibbacakkhu) and some of his awakened disciples through the development of jhana meditation. According to the suttas, a Buddha can access all these planes and know all his past lives as well as those of other beings. > > Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school - Wikipedia Hence the question: **Are these 31 planes of existence actually existing all around us RIGHT HERE where we are (as in 31 'dimensions' per se), or are they belonging in different planets and galaxies far apart from each other? Since 'planes' can also mean 'dimensions' if viewed from such a perspective.** Please verify! Thanks for your patience!

The Buddha has taught the concept of 'not self' (anatta) - which comes into play when we are dealing with our body, feelings, perceptions etc, to think that it's not actually 'my' body, or 'my feelings and perceptions', but rather to observe them as if you're an outsider. For example, instead of thinking "my ear hurts", it should be "there's an ear, and it hurts". Instead of "I feel angry", it should be "a mind has thoughts that have anger in them", so observe these thoughts as if you're an outsider and watch the anger arising, existing whilst constantly changing, and passing away. I was wondering whether the Buddha ever said anything about how to apply this principal when we're "talking"? The words feel much like 'myself', and I'm wondering how I can practice not-self while talking as well. Are there any suttas that address how we can practice not-self when we talk?

In vipassana we are asked to be optimist. But buddha said expectation is the cause of all suffering. . Is there any difference between expectation and optimism?

Will they experience dukkha? Do they have thoughts which lead to form sankhara? What are the things they experience due to ignorance? Would they have mindfulness on five perceptions? Explain, when they experience a desire, how do they get rid of the desire? How is the desire different than from a sotapanna person?

Based on a real situation, I have come across some people who claim to be Sotapanna and Sakadaagaami.. When i have gotten angry or upset about something they said or did, i was told i am committing Aarya Upavaada. This is nothing to do with Dhamma but personal issues such as relationships and finances. I am told if i get angry or upset with them, i am still committing Aarya Upavaada as the people involved are Aarya. With Sutta references, could someone tell me if this is indeed Aarya Upavaada and what actually constitutes Aarya Upavaada?

What role if any does academic scholarship play in Buddhism? Should Buddhists be concerned with what scholars say, or can we safely ignore them? How should we resolve conflicts between tradition and academia? For specific conflicts I can cite some of my own work. See for example my discovery that karma and dependent arising are mutual contradictory: See Does Karma Break the Rules? and Sarvāstivāda Approach to the Problem of Action at a Temporal Distance . I have subsequently discovered that Nāgārjuna also thought so (MMK 17.1-6). Or my discover that all theories of karma are internally inconsistent : ; or the conflict between metaphysics and morality ; or the assertion made by Sean Carroll that no afterlife of any kind is possible (including rebirth).

I have one query. All the Sutra's ( lotus Sutra, heart Sutra) belongs to which Tripitaka (first second or third)?

Further to answers to this question , I am looking for any Buddhist organizations or charities that may offer to fund for pursuing a higher academic education in Buddhism, all over the world. I searched but I don't really get proper keywords. So if you know any such institution...

There are Two Truths in Mahayana Buddhism Conventional and Ultimate. I can't understand how it works. For example: Two Mahayana Buddhists have realized the absolute truth: and one Buddhist tells the other that he has a headache. But how does another Buddhist perceive it according to absolute truth?

Did Gautama Buddha really intend to create a new religion? Was it because he was disillusioned with the prevalent religious practices, rituals and teachings of his time?