I was part of a religious group that claimed to be everything that the Buddha teaches. But, when you listen to their teachings, you can tell discrepancies between their teachings and Buddhist teachings. I just saw many people being misguided, but I do not know what to do. (Just to clarify, the religious group I'm referring to is neither Mahayana nor Theravada. But, the question can be generalized further if necessary.) On one end, I do not wish to create any conflict among anyone. On the other end, I feel sad that many people are misguided into the teaching. So, the question is: What should I do? Any answers based on experience would be AWESOME, and experience + Scripture references (said by famous teachers or based on Pali Canon) would be an Awesome+++infinity. :) Once again, I hope to find a method that does not create animosity. Thanks Buddhist Community! Praises to the Dharma. ******As for an explanation on how this question is different from the forum titled "How to address wrong view", it's pretty much the same, except this is more scenario-based. I just wanted a different perspective/insight to this specific scenario. My ultimate goal is to avoid conflict!!!

Disciples of the noble ones are supposed to take the Buddha as the role of the Father, and Dhamma as Mother. When a disciple attains full liberation, completes the path to self-enlightenment, becomes a Buddha/Tathagata, does he become his own Father and his own word becomes his own Mother? Specially: did Gotama Sakyamuni take himself as Father and his own speech as Mother? and would all of his arahants be expected to do the same, or keep the Boddhisatta and his Word as Father-Mother? Also maybe, how about the disciples committed to the (Mahayana) bodhisattva vows?

Is it plausible or possible in Buddhist thought for a being to experience nirvana, enlightenment, without adhering to Buddhist thoughts or viewpoints? It it possible for people to receive true dharma from a not-Buddhist framework? From my standpoint, there are many people in the world from various traditions who practice deep meditation and live virtuous lives. It seems reasonable to me that in their practices they, too, come into the presence of the deepest grounds of being, and achieve profound realizations and transformations. Yet, if they are not Buddhist, they may not report back things like emptiness of self and all phenomenon, or reincarnation. They might instead discuss the soul, the self, God, for example. Hence my questions. In some Mahamudra texts, I have read things like “one must recognize the emptiness of the mind” in order to get to the most advanced levels. Is that really so? What happens if we get to the deepest levels in meditation, and we decide that there is not emptiness of the mind? I would imagine the answers are different for different schools of Buddhism. I am interested in specific schools’ thoughts, and general Buddhist perspective as a whole.

It seems a commonly held notion that the actual written text of Buddhadharma were only recorded well after the life of the Buddha. However, this sutta seems to indicate that was not so: > "Take a mendicant who says: ‘Reverend, I have heard and learned this > in the presence of the Buddha: this is the teaching, this is the > training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither > approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should > carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re > included in the discourses and **found in the texts on monastic > training.** If they’re not included in the discourses and found in the > texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly > this is not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully > awakened Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by that mendicant.’ > And so you should reject it." > > AN 4.180 Isn't this prima facie evidence that contrary to this belief that actual teachings were written down and consulted during the life of the Buddha?

Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God? If yes, how? Do all beings intuitively know what is right and what is wrong deep within their consciousness? Even the worst psychopaths? Resources: - https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Is_morality_objective%3F - https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Buddhist teachers say things like > Do not expect anything from anyone, and also: > Do everything with good heart and expect nothing in return and you > will never be disappointed. Such a wonderful lines to get peace and never get disappointed. But as a human, it becomes very tough for us to follow this. Can someone throw light on this please? How we can remove the greedy nature? When we do a lot for someone, we at least expect basic thing in return. It is hard to accept disagreements or carelessness in return from whom where you have done/thought a lot for him in past.

Are there any scriptures discussing on how to prevent wars? I mean for example, from the insights of scriptures, if Buddha were alive then how would Buddha have tried to stop World War 2?

If co-dependant arising is shown to be false or contradictorary, would all of Buddhism fall ? anatta, shunyata, nirvana as extinction-cessation, momentariness and and so forth seem to be based on this law-paticasamutpada/pratityasamutpada ? is this Buddhism's crutch?

How can I tell the difference between joy bourne of karma that will expire and joy bourne of karma which has turned the irreversible wheel of the dharma?

I am interested to have correct view according to the original teachings of the Buddha. I asked myself is this according to the teachings of the Buddha and as I am a beginner I really don't know, so hopefully someone can answer my question. So my question is the Sarvastivada says that dhammas exists in the past, present and future. Then they try to logically defend this position with their analysis. It says, the name Sarvāstivāda literally means "all exists" (sarvām asti), referring to their doctrine that all dharmas, past, present and future, all exist. "If there were no past and future, then there would be no present period of time; if there were no present period of time, there would also be no conditioned factors (samskrta dharma). That is why there are the three periods of time (trikala)." Is this according to the original teachings of the Buddha? They seem to give things their own enduring existence thereby seeming to say that impermanence is not true. Did the Buddha say that all things exists in the past, present and future the way the Sarvaistavada do? If not what did the Buddha say about it? Take for instance my chair, now the time is 00:53, my chair was present here 00:51 in the past as well and will be here at 00:58 does this mean what they are saying is true it seems to be like that but I am confused and I would love to read your answers. Thank you

I've come across this term recently and have seen quite a few opinions and definitions. My understanding is that it is actually a hardcore Theravada movement that is in some ways a conservative backlash against watered down Buddhism in the West. Is this a correct assessment?

Where should we go for the rest what is the rest ? In mundane life living is so tough , facing sorrow , troubles and need to struggle for achieve something physical things and we get hurt because craving. As I'm doing myself I'm feeling nothing and restless because craving and got nothing after craving and everything is over . So where to focus , what is aim of one Buddhist. I never practice and now I don't understand from where to start, not feeling to start.

Does Buddhism uphold and/or advocate the theory of Evolution, the theory of Charles Darwin? Does Buddhism believes that our ancestors were monkeys and apes? I as a Christian don't believe in Evolution, I can't believe this that my ancestors were apes and I am a MUTANT APE! If you tell a child that he or she is an animal, gradually they behave like animals! But, What Mahatma Gautama Buddha and his Dhamma say on this issue? Please help with a Nichiren Buddhist point of view.

In this book **Preparing to Die: Practical Advice and Spiritual Wisdom from the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition** Lama Tharchin makes a powerful statement > Dharma is how we can come to die professionally. What did mean by that? How does dharma help us during the death process? book's link

>Are there any Artificial Intelligence applications that can teach the Dhamma that are already out there or are still being developed? > >What can these AI apps do with Buddhism? > >How can they facilitate practice? > >What will AI in development possibly be able to do in relation to Buddhism in the future? ___ Here are some examples of what I mean. Could AI: ___ ...have a conversation with the Tipitaka as it's database? ___ ...understand all the arguments and controversies and debate certain topics? ___ ...help guide someone in their meditation. ___ Metta.

What are entertaining/fictional movies, cartoons or books about Buddhadharma or Buddha himself?

>And then I remembered a passage I had read in one of Suzuki's essays. "What is the Dharma-Body of the Buddha?" ('"the Dharma-Body of the Buddha" is another way of saying Mind, Suchness, the Void, the Godhead.) The question is asked in a Zen monastery by an earnest and bewildered novice. And with the prompt irrelevance of one of the Marx Brothers, the Master answers, "The hedge at the bottom of the garden." "And the man who realizes this truth," the novice dubiously inquires, '"what, may I ask, is he?" Groucho gives him a whack over the shoulders with his staff and answers, "A golden-haired lion." This story is quoted from Huxley's The Doors of Perception. What is the meaning of the story?

How are laws and rules in harmony with the Dhamma? How are the laws and rules we make in harmony or in conflict with the Dhamma? How can one best practice Dhamma while also practicing law ,enforcing law or enforcing any rules?

I'm seeking a meditation/dharma teacher to help strengthen my practice, once I find one and establish some relationship what is the proper way to request becoming their student. I'm interested in The etiquette for lay or monastic. Also where I am there is not a strong community of practice what suggestions if any does anyone have about online teachers/instruction? (Hazards/cautions) if the relationship has to be long distance what steps can I take to make it more beneficial?

In many suttas the Buddha stated different reasons for the decline of the Dhamma. Why and how it happens. The different causes. Can I have the references of those suttas? -Metta