Hello again after 7 years. Since 2023Oct07, I've been reading about the Israel vs Palestine conflict and then the underlying Abrahamic religions involved Christianity, Judaism & Islam. During my reading, there's a particular Bible verse that caught my attention, namely Luke 4:24 'No prophet is accepted in his hometown. ' I soon realised that Christianity is the only major religion among both Abrahamic & Dharmic religions more popular outside than inside its birthplace... 1. Hinduism (& Sikhism & Jainism ?) - Most Indians are Hindu. India is the top in Hindu population (but top 2 in population by percentage . Similarly, India is the top in Sikh population but top 2 in population by percentage for Sikhism behind... Canada. Oh ok, a non-Asian country. Nice. Good for Sikhism.) 2. Islam - Most Saudis are Muslim. Saudi Arabia isn't the top in Muslim population. But if you consider the Middle East and North Africa as a whole, then MENA beats Indonesia I guess. 3. Judaism - Most Israelis are Jewish. Also Israel is the top country in Jewish population. (But if you consider ethnic Jews and even further the extended definitions of 'Jew' under the law of return for Israel, then Israel is 2nd to the US . Eh.) 4. Christianity - Few Israelis or ethnic Jews are Christian. Most Christians are gentile non-Israelis, actually gentile non-Asians. 5. Donald Trump (lol) - accepted more by Israelis than American Jews based on the 2024 exit polls. ...**Oh but wait there's 1 exception (so much for trying to this argument of uniqueness of Christianity to Jews, atheists & Muslims ... Well at least Christianity is the only religion more popular outside than inside Asia, birthplace of all 5 major religions...and again assuming you don't count extended definition of 'Jew'.)**... 6. Buddhism - Apparently, Buddhism 's birthplace was Nepal or somewhere in greater India . The **secular/natural** reasons are given in other answers such as. 1. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/46906/why-is-buddhism-popular-in-eastern-asia-compared-to-south-asia-where-it-originat 2. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3338/why-is-buddhism-followed-mainly-outside-of-india-when-it-originated-there 3. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/20848/what-was-the-reason-behind-the-fall-of-buddhism-in-india 4. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/25486/why-did-buddhism-declined-and-then-almost-extinguished-in-india 5. [Why is Buddhism more prevalent in East Asia than in South Asia where it originated from?](https://qr.ae/pYUKoB) 6. [Why do people associate Buddhism with China or Thailand but not with India where Buddha preached the majority of his life?](https://qr.ae/pYUKMX) # My question is now **religious/prophetic/scriptural/supernatural** reasons : 1. Were there any prophecies or something that Buddhism would be more popular outside than inside, similar to like how in Christianity, there are prophecies that speak of how the Messiah (Buddha?) would initially be rejected by his own people the Jews (Hindus? Indians? Idk). Eg Isaiah 49:6-7 , 29:10 , 53:8 2. Actually, in this regard, please also explain briefly (not necessarily in full detail. Just pertaining to prophecies or lack thereof) to me the relationship of Hinduism & Buddhism because I guess I'm implicitly assuming Jesus of Nazareth is analogous to Siddhartha Gautama like : | |Dharmic|Abrahamic| |:-|:-|:-| |Original religion|Hinduism|Judaism| |birthplace starts with letter 'i'|India/Greater India/South Asia|Israel/West Asia/Asia| |after WW2, has been at war w/ starts with the letter 'p'|Pakistan|Palestine| |whose religion is|Islam|Islam| |New religion w/ same birthplace|Buddhism|Christianity| |but more popular in|East Asia|Non-Asia| |Started by|Siddhartha Gautama|Jesus of Nazareth| |Title|Buddha, the Enlighted One|Messiah, the Anointed One| |The originals who believe|Bhagavata Sampradaya, Sat Vaishnavism, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, ISKCON|Messianic Judaism | Maybe there's no such 'prophecy' if it's not really that Gautama was Hindu trying to start a 'new religion' (sort of) like how Jesus was Jewish revolutionary or idk. Also, I read there's like a prophesised 'Kalki ' who in some denominations of Hinduism is a reincarnation of Buddha or Krishna (and is hopefully not Mohammed ). But idk are those Hindus who believe in Gautama like 'Messianic Jews', Jews who believe in Jesus? And anyway, if there's no prophecy, then, what, it's just some big coincidence and there are maybe only a few parallels in histories of how Christianity & Buddhism became more popular outside than inside their birthplaces? P.S. I haven't seen Saint Young Men , but I'm not quite a fan of Hikaru Nakamura . Lol.

One of my main problems with Indian religions has always been cult-like and occult-like practices that is present in it, especially Hinduism. I thought Buddhism, given what Buddha taught, would be immune to it but it doesn't seem so. Vajrayana consists of weird mantra chantings, doing of taboo stuff like alcohol and sexual orgies. Many Buddhists online seem to say "Oh no no, it is not just about sex. Westerners are misinterpreting it!" but sex DOES seem to be a huge part of tantra and therefore Vajrayana. Whereas Buddhism teaches self-restraint, Vajrayana teaches doing sexual orgies and chanting mantras and remembering aweful looking deities while doing it. The practices are esoteric and has to be done under the guidance of a guru. This is seriously cult 101. You can study anthropology and religious studies, almost every single cult revolves around these kind of practices. A lot of abuse happen under these things - there are gurus who pretend that the illicit sex they are having with disciples or consorts or children are not bad but part of the 'path to enlightenment' and in the process simply use their influence to get sex and rape/groom people. One of the reasons despite being born in a Hindu family I distanced myself from Hinduism was the, what Abrahamic religions would call, 'demonic' practices - strange rituals, gods who are immoral and make people do immoral things, leads to insanity, frauds and immorality, esotericism, etc. Abrahamics already have a very negative view of Hinduism and Buddhism, and things like tantra and Vajrayana are definitely not helping. Why is such a school of practice allowed in Buddhism?

I know what Buddhism teaches about 6 realms,and devas in particular.But what is the Buddhist take on,say,pagan gods-to what kind of entity people turn when they say they work with Thor for example,or any other pagan/heathen god?What are they according to Buddhism?

I have been in search of a higher truth as far as I remember, like a stargazer looking for the brighter one and dropping the dimmer. I started from Christianity or generally from the Abrahamic religions just because it was close at home, then progressed on to the early Greek philosophy when I found out that the theology of these religions is just a makeshift of Plato's Philosophy. The Greek thought kept me for a while, especially the Stoics which I still respect the most, but then I discovered the wisdom of the East mainly because of the proximity of the Taoist with the Cynics. I explored the Eastern thought and religions for many years Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I read, inquired and tried to practice some for longer and some for shorter years. There is an apparent similarity between these religions and it can be said that a common theme is repeated again and again That said, Ashtavakra Gita is very distinct and truly a higher teaching. I know it is a Hindu scripture, but it’s just by name, the Gita presents almost all Hinduism as a bluff of vanity. By my understanding none of the philosophy or religion of the world that i encountered, except perhaps the higher teaching of Buddhism, Laozi Tao and some few thoughts in the west, will stand its truth. So, I'm looking for a comparative study between Buddhism and this specific scripture Ashtavakra Gita.

How did different people with different philosophies and ideologies attain the same enlightenment or did they not? Buddha attained enlightenment and so did Adi Shankaracharya, but their philosophies are different (not to mention ramanujacharya, nagarjuna and many others). Or is it the case that we can never really know who attains enlightenment? Well I know that there is similarity between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta but at the core they are very different. How did they attain the same enlightenment knowing the real truth in two different ways? At least one of them is wrong. Well some say the truth can be interpreted in different ways but if advaita says self exists and buddhism denies it there is a big problem you can't make them compatible with one another.

In religions with God, the believer or devotee can call on God for help during distress, pray to God to seek emotional relief, find a virtual shoulder to cry on and sing God's praises or glories for emotional upliftment (including the use of devotional music). They also establish a personal relationship with God. In Christianity, one has the relationship of being a child of God. In Islam, one has the relationship of being a servant of God, created by Him and therefore must submit to Him. In Hinduism (Hare Krsna), one can see God as a friend, son, teacher, master, lover etc. Whether God exists or not is not the point here for discussion. Certainly in the above cases, there may not be any tangible direct interaction with God, but the believer or devotee could often indirectly feel the presence of God or see good things that happen to them as miracles that come as a response to devotion and prayer. The above describes the emotional support that one could get from religions that have a God. I know this exists in certain parts of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism too with Kwan Yin (Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara) and other Buddhist deities fulfilling the emotional support role of God. Chinese Buddhists have long composed songs and prayers to sing the glories of Kwan Yin, and they also call on Her during distress. However, in Theravada Buddhism, there exists no such emotional support from any deity. So, what should the Theravada Buddhist do in these cases? For example, during sudden distress or grief or loneliness, how would the Theravada Buddhist seek emotional support or relief, without a deity? How does a Theravada Buddhist sooth his or her emotions without devotional music? With whom does the Theravada Buddhist seek a relationship when they find that their worldly relationships have failed them?

The Wikipedia article entitled "Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta " states: > A few Buddhist scholars made the opposite criticism in the medieval > era toward their Buddhist opponents. In the sixth century AD, for > example, the Mahayana Buddhist scholar Bhaviveka redefined Vedantic > concepts to show how they fit into Madhyamaka concepts, and "equate[d] > the Buddha's Dharma body with Brahman, the ultimate reality of the > Upanishads. My question is this an accurate description of the teachings of Bhaviveka? Did he redefine Vedantic concepts to fit a Buddhist view? I want people knowledgeable on this subject to answer.

While reading Bhagavad Gita I just wondered what buddha would have done in *this* situation? It's truly not good to ask such questions they may seem speculative to some but I want **probabilities** not speculations, I feel that a mind versed in Buddha's doctrine should be able to give me Buddha's perspective. at onset of war between Pandavas and Kauravas who happen to be cousins Arjuna from Pandava side was inspecting war arrangements. In middle of war field, Arjuna got demotivated when he saw that he is going to fight his own relatives and teachers. He decided to surrender and told same to his charioteer Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna as an answer to Arjunas confusion told him what is now called as 'Bhagavad Gita'. The major arguments Lord Krishna gave in favour of Arjuna fighting the war was: - Arjuna was kshatriya by varna (ancient Indian class system) so war was his duty, he should fight as he will get heaven by fulfilling his duty. - Atman or Soul is immortal so it doesn't matter even if opposition dies since we will destroy only their body their soul will take another body. - Even if you think atman don't exist then also the being will reincarnate again, so it's not virtuous to cling to your relatives. - A person should follow Karmayoga which is doing own duty without thinking about it's result. One should fix their mind on God and carry on their duty without being attached to it's result. If Buddha were in place of Krishna what he would have done when Arjuna expressed his desire to abandon war? Below is background of war > The cause of the Kurukshetra War was a complex and multifaceted one, involving political, social, and moral factors. Some of the main reasons that led to the war were: > - The rivalry and hatred between the Kauravas and the Pandavas, who were cousins and descendants of the Kuru dynasty. The Kauravas, led by Duryodhana, were jealous and resentful of the Pandavas, who were favored by their elders, such as Bhishma and Vidura, and by the gods, such as Krishna. The Kauravas tried to harm and kill the Pandavas on several occasions, such as by poisoning, burning, and exiling them. >- The dispute over the throne of Hastinapura, the capital of the Kuru kingdom. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son of the king should inherit the throne. However, Dhritarashtra, the eldest son of Vichitravirya, was born blind and was deemed unfit to rule. Therefore, his younger brother Pandu became the king. Pandu, however, was cursed by a sage that he would die if he ever had sexual intercourse. He retired to the forest with his wives, Kunti and Madri, and entrusted the kingdom to Dhritarashtra. Pandu's sons, the Pandavas, were born through the boon of various gods, while Dhritarashtra's sons, the Kauravas, were born through the intervention of Vyasa, the sage and author of the Mahabharata. When Pandu died, the Pandavas returned to Hastinapura and were raised along with the Kauravas. However, the question of who should be the rightful heir to the throne remained unresolved. The Kauravas claimed that since Dhritarashtra was the eldest son of Vichitravirya, his sons should inherit the throne. The Pandavas argued that since Pandu was the king, his sons should succeed him. The elders and the people were divided on this issue. >- The injustice and oppression of the Kauravas, especially Duryodhana, who was the eldest and the most wicked of them. Duryodhana, with the help of his uncle Shakuni, a master of deceit and gambling, cheated the Pandavas of their share of the kingdom in a rigged dice game. He also humiliated and insulted Draupadi, the wife of the Pandavas, by trying to disrobe her in public. He refused to give back the kingdom to the Pandavas even after they completed their exile and agreed to a peaceful settlement. He also amassed a huge army of allies, such as Karna, Drona, Bhishma, and others, to wage war against the Pandavas and their supporters, such as Krishna, Arjuna, Bhima, and others. >- The need for dharma, or righteousness, to prevail over adharma, or unrighteousness. The Mahabharata war was not only a human conflict, but also a cosmic one, involving the intervention and participation of various gods, sages, and supernatural beings. The war was seen as a necessary and inevitable event to restore the balance of the world, which was corrupted by the evil deeds of the Kauravas and their allies. The war was also a test and a lesson for the Pandavas and their allies, who had to face various moral dilemmas and challenges in the course of the war. The war was ultimately a victory for dharma, as the Pandavas defeated the Kauravas and established a righteous rule over the land.

Currently when I walk to work I frequently pass Christians of various denominations passing out free books and talking to passers by. I have never heard of a Buddhist group doing the same. I think it is a common perception that Buddhism is not an evangelical religion and Christianity most definitely is. I think this one of the reasons is why people (in the UK) are generally fairly well disposed to Buddhists. But are my perceptions correct? Is Buddhism really not an evangelical religion? It is a universal religion like Christianity and in both there are notions of personal salvation (liberation/nirvana) that surely everyone would benefit from. Is there something in the scriptures or teachings that make Buddhist less evangelical? Or is it just something cultural and in a different place and time things might look very different? Or am I just flat wrong and Buddhism wants to spread the word just as much as Christianity but I'm just not seeing it.

What are the similarities and contrasts between Buddhism and Christianity? To what extent do they make it possible (or not) to practice in and hold the beliefs of both?

I appreciate that religion can be many things but I want to consider the more soteriological aspects of religion. If we can take as a premise that religions including Buddhism have a strong concern about salvation - this would mean that Buddhism and other religions have competing views on this matter. Do Buddhist texts and Buddhist teachers think that other religions are wholly wrong in this regard or maybe partially right or even perhaps everyone is correct in some sense? I'm particularly interested in references for reasonable authoritative texts or quotes from teachers either ancient or contemporary. Also are certain schools of Buddhism more open to other religious views and perhaps other ones more exclusive in their views?

Several years ago, One of my mates gave a book - 'Nibbana (Nirvana) or the Kingom'. I am trying to check any other recent prints. The last print was in 1964. Were there any rewrites? Can someone give a synopsis?

The Buddhist way to see the Samsara, or the circle of life and death, is, according to my understanding: **Innumerable causes and effects.** Is this right? Is there a special *meaning* conferred by this, to the practitioners of Buddhism? What does it mean to Buddhists? In comparison, in my opinion, Hinduism delivers more *meaning* to its practitioners, with regards to Samsara, as seen in this Bhagavad Gita quote: **BG 7.14: My divine energy Maya, consisting of the three modes of nature, is very difficult to overcome. But those who surrender unto Me cross over it easily.** It gives a *meaning*. The existence is reflecting a super-consciousness, which is not unreal or trivial, it is a super-consciousness that reflects our actions, our feelings, our nature which create obstacles and mirror all craving for material world as the way routing far from the beginning point, the point inside a circle, the center, indeed. I cannot perceive a reality that I should refuse for the nature of emptiness while I am living in this very reality, without at least a *meaning* of what it is. After all, If it has no meaning, why would Gautama Buddha appear in this world, then disappear without saving all people inside the Samsara itself? Isn't this a contradiction? I would like to discuss the above peacefully. This is not a provocation. I'm sure Buddhism has a logical explanation for this and I would like to hear it from this forum.

In western philosophy the distinction primarily goes like this: Philosophy - The rational investigation of human reason. Religion - Similar but has its basis in faith rather than 'rationality'. What I was primarily wondering was, does Buddhism make the same kind of explicit distinctions like in western philosophy? Do they view philosophy and religion as the same thing? And, if so what do both Buddhist texts and contemporary scholars say about it. **Not asking whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy**

Have any important Buddhists made any claim/s about Krishnamurti's teachings? Especially (caveat I know nothing about this) his claim that > "Tell them **there is *nothing* to understand**" Bold emphasis is mine . or > He claimed that the demand for enlightenment was the only thing > standing in the way of enlightenment itself, if enlightenment existed > at all.

What would Buddhists say in response to the statement by Plato in The Republic Book IV : > And are there not many other cases in which we observe that when a > man's desires violently prevail over his reason, he reviles himself, > and is angry at the violence within him, and that in this struggle, > which is like the struggle of factions in a State, his spirit is on > the side of his reason; > You remember that passion or spirit appeared at first sight to be a > kind of desire, but now we should say quite the contrary; for in the > conflict of the soul, spirit (passion) is arrayed on the side of the > rational principle (reason). I have some ideas but I would like some other opinions. I'm primarily interested in the second paragraph, and not so much regarding the concept of soul. Just to clear up my assumption, I equate reason to be the same as Buddhist concept of intellect. It seems true, but is it just morality? Even morality is reason no?

Why is it that Buddhism never compiled a reasonably concise set of canonical texts like the Bible? Buddhism itself has universal beliefs such as the 4 Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the notion of going for refuge. To me then it doesn't seem unreasonable that there could have been a Buddhist Bible that complied these central beliefs in the same way as the Christian Bible. Even though the Christian world is diverse they still manage with one Bible (though I do appreciate there are different version such as the Orthodox Bible) and this Bible forms the basis of new forms of Christianity or new emphasis on Christian belief. However Buddhism seems to have an enormous array of texts over a number of different canons (Pali, Chinese, Tibetan) and commentaries and para canonical texts. Why the difference? Is there something in the history or culture of these two religions that caused them to treat their texts differently. Am I wrong and the differences aren't really there if you look at it correctly? Is it a theological matter? I appreciate you could ask the same question about Islam and Hinduism (I think) but I want to keep the question as on-topic and tractable as possible.

Can you be a Buddhist and believe in another religion at the same time?

I recently found a book called "A Buddhist Bible". In it, Buddha refers to that there have been many Buddhas before him. If Buddha was the one to put the foundations of Buddhism, what "religions" did the previous Buddhas practice? Does this question even make any sense?

I've come across Jainism through looking for texts on Buddhism and I've found there seems a considerable amount of overlap. Did Siddhartha Gautama encounter or study under any Jainist teachers? It seems Jainism predates Buddhism by a lot so were these concepts also predating Siddhartha too? Jainism: The ultimate goal of Jainism is the liberation of the self (jiva) from rebirth, which is attained through the elimination of accumulated karma (the consequences of previous actions). This occurs through both the disciplined cultivation of knowledge and control of bodily passions. When the passions have been utterly conquered and all karma has been removed, one becomes a Jina ("conqueror"), and is no longer subject to rebirth. These principles include non-violence in all parts of life (verbal, physical, and mental), speaking truth, sexual monogamy, and the detachment from material things. As part of the disciplined and non-violent lifestyle, Jains typically are strict vegetarians and often adhere to a quite arduous practice of non-violence, which restricts the sorts of occupations they may follow (no farming, for instance, since insects are inadvertently harmed in plowing). Jainism's ethical system is based on the idea that right faith, knowledge, and conduct must be cultivated simultaneously. Like comparing rules of monks and even the five precepts are identical from what I found. The five precepts and five vows are identical from what I saw. This is a list of comparisons and contrasts. Sounds a whole lot like Buddhism to me! Does anyone know about the Jainism/Buddhism comparison?