What is the Buddhist view on crying? I don't remember hearing or reading about the Buddha ever crying. Is crying a consequence of "lack of understanding" of the ultimate reality?

What is the difference between Lord Buddha's Wisdom, and Venerable Sāriputta's wisdom? --- The distinction of the wisdom of a right hand disciple of a Buddha & a fully self awakened Buddha? *The understanding from the suttas, commentaries or 'believed to be' arahants.*

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).

If someone at their deathbed feels like they lived a good enough life and don't need anything anymore, then they ceased carving right? Did they become Buddhas? Their last mindstream's moment will not be conditioned by craving, so no rebirth right?

This is how I understand it and I'd like some clarity on where I'm right/wrong. Rebirth/the next birth happens when the mindstream, attracted to particular situations because of its mental imprints , 'finds' a suitable host body after death and incarnates into the flesh. Then the being, be it human or animal or deva, undergoes a series of situations due to karmic conditioning, creates more karmic conditioning, dies and is born again ad infinitum, unless it has the fortune (or karma, really) to encounter Buddhist teachings. Then the seed of enlightenment is planted; the being goes through several lives become increasingly interested in transcending the cycle of suffering. They follow Buddhist teachings consciously and diligently until they attain enlightenment. It doesn't have to explicitly be 'Buddhist teachings', but the being's motivation has to stem from compassion and bodhicitta. Certain enlightened beings who have already figured out the whole cycle & broken out of it (e.g. Amitabha, Padmasambhava etc.) leave being technology that unenlightened beings can use to break out of the cycle. i.e. Mantras. I would guess that its because chanting the mantras gradually shapes the mindstream to be more similar to that of the enlightened beings'. That's why its recommend to practice one mantra diligently, rather than spread out your efforts across several, and that 'all practice is the same because buddha-nature is the same'. **Is my understanding wrong in any way?**

I have difficulty with the notion of bodhicitta and the concept of Boddhisattva, and the difference with the concept of Buddha. If I understand correctly, the idea is to have an altruistic intention in one's practice: to seek liberation not for oneself, but for all sentient beings. I can understand the usefulness of having an altruistic intention as a basis for one's practice, but I have the impression that for Mahayana this must be taken as a real objective: however, it is held in Buddhism that samsara has no beginning and no end, therefore neither does ignorance, and that there will never be a moment when all beings will be liberated. In the same way, the practitioner who attains enlightenment obtains it only for himself, and cannot give it to others like a deity who would offer a grace: "each one is his own refuge". So what is the real scope of bodhicitta? Is it only a pious wish? How can one truly believe that one is really practicing for the liberation of the world and not only one's own, if one knows for a fact that awakening is always "personal" and that samsasra will always exist? If the idea is only to awaken in order to be able to teach others, this is what a Buddha does and there is no need for the concept of Boddhisattva for that. If the idea is to help others and to have a mind radiating compassion, this is also what a Buddha does with the brahmavihara and I don't see the difference with the Bodhisattva.

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

Is a Buddha omniscient? If so, is there some agreement on what omniscience more specifically means? (All traditions are of interest. But particularly Mahayana)

There is some information here at wikipedia I am curious to know if that came from Buddha himself or mentioned in any suttas. The 'sasana' concepts restricts appearence of solitary buddhas or Prateyakabuddhas or paccekabuddhas (as described in Isigili Sutta and Rhinocerous Sutta) without a Sangha. Any thoughts...

Many times I've heard of Budai (pictured below) being associated with Maitreya, the future Buddha. Why is this so and how widespread is this belief? Wikipedia lists a short verse uttered before Budai's death: >Maitreya, the true Maitreya has billions of incarnations. Often he is shown to people at the time; other times they do not recognize him. Is there more to this association or was the simple utterance of that verse so long ago the sole reason for believing that Budai was the bodhisatta?

Correct me if I am wrong. Siddharth went to Alara Kalama, who told him to focus on his breath in order to get rid of Feelings, (Buddha achieved Alara Kalama level in 2 months), Now he told his teacher that when he is in meditation, everything is fine but on coming to ordinary state, Negative & positive Feelings again came to him. Now Alara Kalama told him to go to uddaka rāmaputta, **What did Siddharth learn under uddaka rāmaputta ?** Above information is seen in an indian television show "**Buddha**" I wanna know what happened in real ?

Question is in the title. Thank you for your time.

This question is further to my last question on Nirvana and evolution, and considering the answer ... If we believe the Buddhist cosmology to be true and Nirvana as an *evolutionary* next step, then why is it that very few people actually tread the path to it? Considering the world religious demographics only 7% of worlds population follow Buddhism and of those who call themselves Buddhists maybe just 1% actually want or strive towards Nirvana. Is intense suffering an inevitable step to begin striving towards Nirvana? If Buddhist understanding of the human condition and psychology is true, why do only a limited few humans want or strive towards Nirvana? If Buddhist cosmology is true, why do humans not en masse go on the Buddhist path?

I'm looking for some help in finding a reference. It's from a contemporary writer -- probably in the last ten years -- not from anything ancient or canonical. The context is as follows. The word “Buddha” -- i.e. the title-cased version -- is typically used to refer to *The* Buddha, *Siddartha Gautama*. Also, but less frequently, it can refer to a relatively small bunch of others, such as *Maitreya*; any of the *Saptatathāgata*; and the like. By contrast, and contrary to popular opinion (although familiar to most of us here), the lower-cased version of the word, “buddha" actually applies to anyone who has attained a particular degree of awakening. Please excuse that very imprecise definition on my part, but for the purposes of my question the operative word there is simply the “anyone”. In other words, while only a few are acknowledged as being a *Buddha*, in theory anyone can (and perhaps gazillions already have) become a *buddha*. So to my reference. The writer was offering an explanation as to the difference between the two; i.e. what distinguishes the rare, named *Buddhas* from the relatively common, (lower-cased) *buddhas*. And he (I'm pretty sure it was a dude) said that one difference was the place of the *Buddha* as a major teacher of humanity. But in fact, the writer was more emphatic than that. If I'm remembering right, he was arguing that being a teacher of extreme significance was *The* defining characteristic that distinguishes a major *Buddha* from a mere *buddha*. One more clue. I have a strong hunch that the writer was Shinzen Young, but I have not been able to track down what I'm after. And, knowing how I've encountered most of Shinzen's stuff, that might be because I heard him say it, in a video presentation, rather than read it. Is this ringing any bells to anyone? A follow-up question. I don't know the extent to which Shinzen (or whomever it was) was expounding his own theory, versus merely explaining what is a well-established view. If it sounds like it was the latter, then just as useful to me would be a reference to any reliable source, ancient and canonical would then be ideal, that makes the same point; i.e. the point that *The* key characteristic distinguishing a *buddha* from a *Buddha* is that the latter teaches the world how to become the former.

Are there any body who achieved Nibbana currently (in the current world). If so give one or two names, please.

Can nirvana be called as some sort of directed evolution? Can a Buddha or Arahat be considered as an evolved being as compared to the rest?

Buddha is the name for the Supreme Being, right? So are Amitabha Buddha and Sakyamuni Buddha both Supreme Beings but of different galaxies or something? I assume there are more buddhas than just these two. If so, how can there be many Supreme Beings? I guess I am confused by what it means to say Sakyamuni is the buddha of our saha world while Amitabha presides over Sukhavati.

Did Gautama Buddha endorse the caste system? > [Buddhism: An Atheistic and Anti-Caste Religion? Modern Ideology and Historical Reality of the Ancient Indian Bauddha Dharma by Edmun Weber](http://web.uni-frankfurt.de/irenik/relkultur50.pdf) > Hans Wolfgang Schumann has statistically proven that almost all of Buddha's disciples were high caste people and that the Brahmans comprised the majority of the Sangha. > Buddha tells about the earlier Buddhas in the so-called Mahapadana Suttanta- Great Sermon on the Legends.21 He refers to their membership of (high) caste as the first characteristic of their full enlightenment. According to this report the Buddhas belonged all to the high castes, to the Kshatriyas and Brahmans. Buddha says proudly about himself "And now I, the venerable and fully enlightened one, was born a warrior and have come from the caste of the warriors, O monks. > 21 Buddha - Die Lehre des Erhabenen. Aus dem Pali Kanon ausgewählt und übertragen von Paul Dahlke, München 1960. Also: > The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the Brahmanas and of the warriors (Kshatriya). So my question is, did the Buddha endorse or uphold the Vedic caste system?

I am asking the Vajrayana/Mahayana view as I already know the theravada view.I heard that Buddhas only have jnana and not vijnana wich means they are inert like rocks but 'act' based on past merit and deeds , > > there is a sutra passage cited in the Yogācārabhūmi viniścayasaṃgrahanī that states: > > "Bhagavān, how should the mental factors of the tathāgatas be known?" > > "Mañjuśrī, the mind (citta, sems), intellect (yid, manas) or > consciousness (vijñāna, rnam shes) of tathāgatas are indeed not > differentiated in discerning wisdom, but the mind of a tathāgata > arises without formations, and should known to be like an emanation." > > "Bhagavān, it being the case the dharmakāya of the tathāgatas is free > from all action of formations, on the other hand, do mental factors > arise without the action of formations?" > > "Mañjuśrī, it is due to past cultivation of method and wisdom. > > Mañjuśrī, one awakens [from sleep] because of the power of past > formations, but though there are no formations for arising in the > concentration on cessation, one arises [from concentration] only > through the power of past formations. Just as like the mental factors > of sleep and the concentration on cessation, the mental factors of the > tathāgatas should be known to be formations of past cultivation of > method and wisdom." > > "Bhagavān, do the emanations of the tathāgatas have minds or not?" > > "Mañjuśrī, Though they do not have minds, they are also not mindless, > because minds are neither independent nor dependent." so they're like robots.How true is this?and if it is true,isn't suffering but existing for all intents and purposes better than not existing and not suffering?.

This question concerns some Theravada-based practices, with which I am not familiar. It is not a dig but a genuine query that puzzles me. Yet I'm not sure that I have asked this question well. I have strong respect for the Theravada tradition. I recognise the distinctions between a Buddha and an Arahant, (such as the former not having had a teacher, the paramitas, etc.) but these distinctions don't seem to be valid criteria for differentiating the teachings of a Buddha from the teachings of an Arahant, especially in the modern world. Buddha being able to teach in accordance with his audience isn't really relevant to us nowadays - all of his audience died over 2,300 years ago. Even within the EBT (as I understand it), the Early Buddhist Texts, Buddha repeatedly de-emphasises the importance of himself, and instead emphasises the importance of the Dharma - which is to also to be understood experientially. Once we have tasted liberation, and we have a direct experience of it - such that every experience we have demonstrates the deep underlying truth of the four noble truths and the paṭiccasamuppāda, why then would we need to teach from a selection of texts from 2,500 years ago? Again, why is it that the discourses of Buddha, (and some select disciples of his) are 'sutta' but the teachings of any Arahant who has lived in the last few centuries are not 'sutta'? After all, surely it’s the quality of liberated mind that determines the ability to author truth - and certainly not the personality, right?