If everything exists for an instant only, as with Sautrāntika Buddhism, then doesn't that mean everything dies at the exact same time it is born? Isn't that impossible? I am not asking for an analysis of the sutta pitaka, but to understand how anyone could hold those two positions. Did it ever come up in historical debate?

Definitions: - I want to emphasize the mind, the body doesn't ache, isn't sore, isn't itchy, nothing at all; that is the 'an lạc' of the body (bodily ease/well-being). - 'Thanh thản' (serenity) is when our mind doesn't ponder, isn't busy at all; that is 'thanh thản'. - 'Vô sự' (actionlessness/nothing-to-do) is doing nothing at all; the body also does nothing, and the mind also doesn't ponder, meaning it does nothing; that is 'vô sự'. It is normal, very normal like a normal person, yet doing nothing at all. That is: the head/mind doesn't work, and the hands and feet also don't work; that is 'vô sự'. As for the mind that doesn't ponder, doesn't worry about anything at all, that is 'thanh thản' (serenity). As for the body that doesn't ache, isn't sore, itchy, nothing at all, that is 'an lạc' (ease); it is normal. Just like right now, [if] our body has no aches or pains, that is the 'an lạc' of our body. That is the state right now; it's not anything strange or different. It is the normalcy of a normal human being. Therefore, once you recognize that normalcy, now you just need to use the method of Right Thinking (Như Lý Tác Ý), guide it [the mind]: > "A mind unshaken, serene, at ease, and free from involvement.” You just fear it [the mind] will move and ponder about this and that, so you remind it: ‘Mind immovable, serene, at ease, actionless,’ and then just sit relaxedly/idly like that. So, can I use "unshaken, serene, at ease, uninvolved" as a mindful reminder throughout my day to make my mind feel better?

Can I ask you a question? I am a Buddhist and during the Eight Precepts Observance Day, am I not allowed to keep money, but after 24 hours, I can use money, but the money on The Eight Precepts Observance Day I am observing the Eight Precept must be transferred to my cousins or my spouse or my relatives? I mean how can I show that I keep the precept?

Vietnamese paragraph: Nếu không có Tăng Bảo thì không bao giờ chúng ta giác ngộ chân lý được, không giác ngộ chân lý thì biết gì mà hộ trì chân lý, chân lý không được hộ trì thì làm sao chứng đạt được chân lý. There are two options, which one is better? Sentence 1: Without the Sangha Jewel, we can never realize/comprehend the truth; without realizing the truth, we do not know how to uphold the truth, (if the truth is not upheld, it cannot be attained) (not having been upheld, the truth cannot be attained). Sentence 2: Without the Sangha Jewel, we can never realize the truth; without realizing the truth, how could we possibly uphold it; and if the truth is not upheld, how could it ever be attained? Thank your for your reading. Please consider and correct the translation related to Vietnamese Buddhism.

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.

It seems to be a widely held belief held by Hindu scriptures and scholars that The God Shiva incarnated as Adi Shankaracharya in order to stop buddhism. > “In this regard, it is stated in the Padma Purana that Lord Siva > appeared as a brahmana in the age of Kali to preach the Mayavada > philosophy, which is nothing but a type of Buddhist philosophy. It is > stated in Padma Purana: **Lord Siva, speaking to Parvati-devi, > foretold that he would spread the Mayavada philosophy in the guise of > a sannyasi brahmana just to eradicate Buddhist philosophy. This > sannyasi was Sripada Sankaracarya. In order to overcome the effects of > Buddhist philosophy and spread Vedanta philosophy, Sripada > Sankaracarya had to make some compromise with the Buddhist philosophy, > and as such he preached the philosophy of monism, for it was required > at that time.** Otherwise there was no need for his preaching Mayavada > philosophy. At the present moment there is no need for Mayavada > philosophy or Buddhist philosophy, and Lord Caitanya rejected both of > them. This Krishna consciousness movement is spreading the philosophy > of Lord Caitanya and rejecting the philosophy of both classes of > Mayavadi. Strictly speaking, both Buddhist philosophy and Sankara’s > philosophy are but different types of Mayavada dealing on the platform > of material existence. Neither of these philosophies has spiritual > significance. There is spiritual significance only after one accepts > the philosophy of Bhagavad-gita, which culminates in surrendering unto > the Supreme Personality of Godhead. ~ Swami Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 4.24.17 > The exact word used in Sanskrit is nāstika, which refers to one who > does not believe in the Vedas but manufactures some concocted system > of religion. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has said that the followers of > the Buddhist system of religion are nāstikas. In order to establish > his doctrine of nonviolence, **Lord Buddha flatly refused to believe in > the Vedas, and thus, later on, Śaṅkarācārya stopped this system of > religion in India and forced it to go outside India.** ~ Swami Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 4.2.30 ---------- Now my question is NOT about what buddhists think about the validity of Advaita or Whether Shankara was an incarnation. What I am more interested in knowing is that was it really Vedanta / Adi shankara's philosophy that was the main factor responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India? What do Buddhist experts themselves opine on the matter? ---------- Edit:- It would appear the question has been flagged as duplicate. I have seen the linked question and it does not specifically address the question since none of the answers have discussed how much role Adi shankara played in the decline of buddhism in india. I would request the question to be re-opened as I am skeptical of the notion that Adi shankara philosophically defeating buddhists was the major reason behind the decline of buddhism in India and I would like to see If any evidence can be found to the contrary.

I am looking for some book recommendations on scholarly reconstructions of the Early Buddhist Teachings/Texts and the teachings of the original Buddha. E.g. some scholars say that kamma didn't have a major role in early Buddhism, or they say that some other things that are considered a part of Buddhism didn't exist back then or weren't taught by the original Buddha. So I'm looking for a book that talks about this and tries to reconstruct the teachings of the original Buddha in the most authentic way.

Buddhism although doesn't address the path of the gods for enlightment, it is seen that they are largely addressed for their existence. There are entities - dakinis, pisachinis, etc that are negative demons and are acknowledged. In Hinduism, there are methods in *tantra* to invoke *kavacchas* (or shields) to protect the physical self and materialistic self from those negative entities. They largely require deities who take part in shields and project their fellow human being. Are there any alternative practices in Buddhism too - to prevent or stop negative entities (if they exist) from being a burden on the spiritual journey of enlightenment? Like invoking shields in Hinduism or anything parallel?

As the title states, there are no explicit references to Nirodha Samapatti in what is widely considered to be the earliest stratum of the Pali canon (which includes texts such as the Sutta Nipata, Atthakavagga, Parayanavagga, Itivuttaka, Udana). I'm interested to hear from those who consider Nirodha Samapatti to be a canonical teaching of the Buddha - why do you think there are no references to this attainment in the aforementioned texts?

I read the following on the internet by an independent (Australian) bhikkhu: > [Oppositional framing is cringe](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/oppositional-framing-is-cringe/31334) > > You know it when you see it. “Everyone else says that … but I say this”. > > Which is invariably meant to be expanded to, “All those mindless sheep incanting **orthodoxy** say that … but I—a courageous and innovative truth-teller—say this.” > > It’s the fundamental framing of every **conspiracy theory**, endlessly, tediously invoked every time someone says “**do the research**”. But it’s > also one of the most annoying cliches of academic writing, where for > purely rhetorical reasons pretty much every scholar feels the need to > define themselves by what they are against rather than by what they > are for. > > And you also see it all the **little Buddhist** **cult**ettes, which establish > an in-group defined by the rejection of “**the mainstream**”. By > definition, if you don’t agree with their stunning new breakthroughs > in understanding you’re just a sheep trapped in tradition. Dear god in > heaven, it’s so very cringe. It’s the rhetorical maturity of someone > forever trapped in a fifteens year-old’s bedroom, **Metallica** posters > duly blu-tacked to the walls. > > A man of wit and wisdom—namely **Twitter**’s **Sonny Bunch**—once said 5 that > it’s better to like something everyone hates than it is to hate > something everyone likes. He’s right. Why not try liking things? It’s > fun! Are there Pali Suttas that affirm or oppose the above viewpoint? If so, which ones?

The Four Great Elements quite literally translate to Earth, Wind (Air), Fire, Water. It is often taught that these are really descriptions of first person experience, and the monikers are just analogies. These first person experiences are something like: 1. Earth - the felt sense of solidity 2. Water - the felt sense of "squishiness" or liquidity 3. Air - the felt sense of light motion in the body, and also wind on the skin, and sensations from breathing 4. Fire - the felt sense of temperature Is there any evidence in the Sutta Pitaka that this teaching is accurate? In other words, what Suttas seem to imply that when these terms were used, the above interpretation is what was had in mind. In contrast to the "first person experience" interpretation, one might just understand the appearance of these terms in the Sutta Pitaka as referring to material objects and reflecting the understanding of chemistry at the time.

In contemporary society (apart from religion) sex is mostly seen as something pleasurable, which is done even without considering childbearing. As far as I can see, Buddha taught extensively to lay people how to treat each other friendly & compassionately, but omitted the bodily intimacy aspect of it. It's largely sensual desire that binds human couples together, and I am not merely referring to appearance, but also the craving to be touched etc. (as it's always correctly pointed out in the suttas: Pleasant feelings at the 5 sense doors) Q1: Did the Buddha remain silent on these matters because of a specific reason? Q1.1Was the Buddha even concerned about sexual objectification & did he suggested perhaps sexual repression? Dhammapda 242 states: >Unchastity is the taint in a woman Q2: Could it be that a majority of Buddha's teaching are timeless, but few are open for change, due to different societal context etc.? (e.g., 3rd precept) Q3: In the above quote, isn't it a bit biased to state that it's ONLY a woman's taint? Why not a man? Why focus overly on women? Back in those days, there were probably fixed gender roles, but I believe society should progress & should rather acknowledge individuality even among the genders. It seems that the Buddha is over-generalizing, or did the miss the boat?

> In 2012, Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima published a damaged and partial Kharoṣṭhī manuscript of the Mahāyāna Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. It is carbon dated to ca. 75 CE, making it one of the oldest Buddhist texts in existence. > > [Wikipedia: Gandhāran Buddhist texts - The "Split" Collection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandh%C4%81ran_Buddhist_texts#The_%22Split%22_Collection) Here's a copy of that paper by Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima: [A first-century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript from Gandhāra](https://docdro.id/PyJF9z5) Question (1): What are the commonly acceptable hypotheses/theories among Buddhist-studies scholars in order to explain how come Prajñāpāramitā sutra (which belongs to the so-called 'Mahayana') have existed since so early (no later than 75 CE)? Question (2): Is it sensible to hypothesize/theorize (or even accept) that, Prajñāpāramitā thoughts, in fact, have developed early parallel with thoughts in Āgama and Nikāya (which belongs to the so-called 'Hinayana')?

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...

In his brief introduction to [Sivaka Sutta, SN 36:21](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_21.html) , Thanissaro Bhikkhu states that the Sutta has been misinterpreted as saying that there are certain things not explainable as the results of Kamma. His argument, it seems to me, is that because the body is a result of Kamma (through rebirth), necessarily, the illnesses of the body are also encompassed as results of Kamma. But I’m not sure I understand his argument, as in my view, though the body is a result of Kamma, that doesn’t necessarily explain the arbitrary functions and conditions of the body. Am I missing something? Does anybody have an alternative explanation for Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s argument? Furthermore, I read [this other translation of the Sutta by Nyanaponika Thera](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.nypo.html) and the meaning seems to change slightly. In this translation, it seems that the Buddha is censuring the Brahmans who fall into the absolutism of saying that everything is the result of Kamma because they haven’t attained that knowledge for themselves, and are instead just following the common views of the time. This would seem to be more in line with [MN 101](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN101.html) , in which the Buddha refutes the views of the Nigaṇṭhas through a series of very compelling logical arguments. I am somewhat confused at the moment, and I would really appreciate it if someone could provide some clarity regarding this. I understand that the results of Kamma are not equal to predestination, and that it’s a very important component of the Buddha’s teaching, but _how_ exactly it is that the law of Kamma allows for freedom of choice and variation is what I don’t understand. Thank you, and Metta.

I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in a sense different from its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that our **sense of separate self** is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana. In this sense, rebirth happens only in our **present life and not after our physical death**. Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

I've been reading Peter Harvey's Introduction the Buddhism and I've come across the concept of storehouse consciousness. It's in relation to Yogācāra and Chan Buddhism - originally with Yogācāra. It contains karmic seeds (not sure what they are to be fair). Can anyone give me an explanation of this concept. At the moment it seems to me to be some sort of real existence that underpins reality but I'm sure that's not it. I appreciate that there is an explanation on wikipedia about it but I'm not finding that hugely illuminating.

For what reason did Buddha rejected Upanishad and Vedas?

How is 'consciousness' (vinyaana) defined in Buddhist texts? How similar or different is it from the way the word is used these days -- particularly in scientific studies of consciousness ?

I already know this much https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/35802/17220 Still ,there is a particular case where ,I have no experience/knowledge which is below. Person with 27 yrs. of age and above. Parents are alive. No responsibility over Person. Person is having **exemplary character & is unmarried. Person is unsatisfied by any meditation center , monastery , ashram , yogi etc. ,so want to meditate alone in forest alongside other *religious meditators.** Parents are not ready to accept buddha or buddha's teachings for their child cause they think that it(buddhism) is only to destroy householdness. It tears down parents if person flees away to forest or even tries to do so. **Update** Under these circumstances, is permission required **,if yes ,then how to convince parents.** **Note::** 'To be a monk' means 'to go forth to be' :: detached one , beyond all sense of his own name and form. Without any existence of I, my or mine. Not to grieve if his name and form entity were to decay and deteriorate.