I am fairly new to the Dhamma and this site specifically. I was told by an Indian person that dyana (meditation) was a part of a yoga system which became zen in china, dharma became dhamma, most of Buddhists texts are sutras, ideas of reincarnation, maya (phenomenon), nirvana, samaddhi, sat (truth), chitta (conciousness), daya (compassion), ahinsa are all Hindu themes reinterpreted. How much did Sakyamuni reinterpreted on Brahmanism and how much is disinformed?

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.

Am I right that Gauthama Budda did not teach to worship the Hindu Gods? Did he teach not to worship them? Maybe my questions sound stupid to a Buddhist but I am practising Islam and do not know very much about Buddhism. Peace be with you, and thank you for you help.

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?

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?

The ultimate teaching of Buddhism is that of anatta or that there is no permanent soul or self as is there no creator Godhead. However across the vast tapestry of spiritual traditions, there are many which not only actively assert the God/soul beliefs but also have many individuals who say they have attained realizations of soul or God. While the nature of the experiences many vary radically the common thread in all of them is the belief in the soul. An everlasting soul at that. Listing some examples for instance - - The spiritual experiences of an Advaita vedantist, where the practictioner realizes oneself as spirit/consciousness and one with all the cosmos/existence - The spiritual experiences of a Vaishnava involving realizing oneself as a soul, and a part and parcel of a personal God , Vishnu/Krishna. - The spiritual experiences of a Shaivite involving realising oneself as a soul/spirit and identical with the personal God Shiva. Now my question is If an individual attains such realizations/experiences which convince them that they are an eternal soul or are in some way linked/related to some personal or impersonal God, How will such an experience be viewed under the lens of buddhism? Will buddhism view such Soul/God experiences as mental confabulations or accept them having some degree of truth to them?

In the book: '*Origins Of Om Mani padme Hum A Study Of The Karandavyuha Sutra *', Alexander Studholme mentions a hymn to Avalokitesvara that curiously carries several epithets commonly associated with Vishnu and Shiva such as Hari,Narasimha, Nilakantha, sankara etc. How would a buddhist explain these epithets in relation to Avalokitevara? Does this mean the deity was appropriated from the Puranic fold by appropriating the qualities of vishnu/shiva within it?

I find myself frequently drawn towards the philosphy and teachings of the Buddha and feel eager to learn more about it and incorporate it in my life. However, coming from a background where the Vedas and puranas (which are deemed the 5th veda) are held as gospel truth, I often find my faith in the teachings wavering due to my long prior exposure to countless texts from this very background that reiterate again and again that Buddhism is a false philosophy created only for the destruction & delusion of the asuras/demoniacal people. A small sample - Brahmanda purana > 38b-42. Formerly, in the battle between the Devas and the Asuras, **the > Asuras were defeated. They created the heretics like Vṛddhaśrāvakīs, > Nirgranthas, (nude Jainas), Śākyas (Buddhists)**, Jīvaskas and Kārpaṭas. Padma Purana 6.236.5-7 > **Visnu of the form of Buddha proclaimed the false Buddhist doctrine and > those of the naked and wearing dark blue garments for the destruction > of the demons.** The doctrine of Maya (illusion) is a wicked doctrine > and said to be pseudo- Buddhist. I myself, of the form of a Brahmana, > proclaimed it in Kali (age).” Agni Purana 16.1-6 > They sought refuge in the lord saying, “Protect us! Protect us!”. He > (Viṣṇu), who is of the form of illusory delusion became the son of > Śuddhodana. > > 3-4. He deluded those demons. **Those, who had abandoned the path laid > down in the Vedas, became the Bauddhas and from them others who had > abandoned the Vedas. He then became the Arhat (Jaina). He then made > others as Arhats. Thus the heretics came into being devoid of vedic > dharmas.** > > **5-6. They did such a work deserving hell (as reward).** They would > receive even from the vile. All of them became mixed Dasyus and devoid > of good conduct at the end of Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana III.18.14-26 > **It is known” (Budhyate), these Daityas were induced by the arch > deceiver to deviate from their religious duties (and become Bauddhas), > by his repeated arguments and variously urged persuasions, When they > had abandoned their own faith, they persuaded others to do the same, > and the heresy spread, and many deserted the practices enjoined by the > Vedas and the laws. The delusions of the false teacher paused not with > the conversion of the Daityas to the Jaina and Bauddha heresies, but > with various erroneous tenets he prevailed upon others to apostatize, > until the whole were led astray, and deserted the doctrines and > observances inculcated by the three Vedas**. Some then spake evil of the > sacred books; some blasphemed the gods; some treated sacrifices and > other devotional ceremonies with scorn; and others calumniated the > Brahmans. “The precepts,” they cried, “that lead to the injury of > animal life (as in sacrifices) are highly reprehensible. To say that > casting butter into flame is productive of reward, is mere > childishness. If Indra, after having obtained godhead by multiplied > rites, is fed upon the wood used as fuel in holy fire, he is lower > than a brute, which feeds at least upon leaves. If an animal > slaughtered in religious worship is thereby raised to heaven, would it > not be expedient for a man who institutes a sacrifice to kill his own > father for a victim..." For those who are not from the same background where the vedas and puranas(which are deemed the 5th veda) are held as the paramount truth, it would probably seem like a very trivial issue. A non-issue even. However due to my frequent exposure to such instances, I often find myself mentally torn despite deep inside wanting to follow the Buddha's way. It's as if a part of me is always afraid :- What if these texts are true and buddhism is false? My Question is, As someone who aspires to embrace buddhism, how should I weed out the self-doubt created in my mind from these towards the buddhist philosophy? Please help.

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 have heard that buddha mentioned vedas in some of his discussions. What about ramayana or mahabharata? Did buddha or any of his close contemporaries mention them anywhere?

The following are some arguments I came across from Advaita vedantists in some online forums against the buddhist view of the self. I am curious as to how Buddhists well versed into the philosophy would respond to them. **Buddhist Perspective on Self** > The Buddhist denial of Self is based on a misunderstanding of what > Advaita means by Atman. Atman is not a separate, individual entity but > the very essence of consciousness itself. The Buddha’s teaching of > No-Self (Anatta) was primarily aimed at refuting the notion of a > permanent, unchanging individual self, which Advaita also rejects. > > Advaita agrees that there is no permanent individual self, but asserts > that there is an underlying, unchanging consciousness (Brahman/Atman) > that is the substrate of all experience. This consciousness is not > separate from the world but is its very essence. > > The Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada’s Karika demonstrate that waking, > dream, and deep sleep states all require a conscious witness that > persists through all states. This witness-consciousness is what > Advaita refers to as Atman. **Arguments Against Atman** > The Buddhist argument that the Self is a mental abstraction fails to > recognize the self-evident nature of consciousness. As Shankara points > out in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras, the existence of the Self > is self-evident and cannot be denied, for it is the very basis of all > denial. > > The Buddha’s reluctance to explicitly state “There is no self” can be > seen as an acknowledgment of the problematic nature of such a > statement. If there truly is no self, who is it that realizes this > truth? Who attains Nirvana? > > Advaita agrees that the idea of an individual, separate self leads to > suffering. However, it posits that the solution is not to deny the > Self altogether, but to realize one’s true nature as the universal > Self (Brahman). > > The Buddhist critique of “me” and “mine” is valid for the ego-self, > but not for the universal Self of Advaita. Realizing one’s true nature > as Brahman leads not to selfishness, but to universal love and > compassion, as seen in the lives of great Advaita sages. **Conditioned Genesis and Dependent Origination** > Advaita acknowledges the validity of Dependent Origination at the > empirical level (vyavaharika satya). However, it points out that the > very recognition of this interdependence requires a consciousness that > is not itself part of the causal chain. > > The 12-factor formula of paticca-samuppada is a brilliant analysis of > the cycle of samsara. However, Advaita asks: Who is aware of this > cycle? The awareness of the cycle cannot itself be part of the cycle. > > The Buddha’s rejection of soul-theories is understood in Advaita as a > rejection of limited concepts of self, not of consciousness itself. > The “correct approach” described in Buddhism of seeing things > objectively without mental projections is precisely what leads to the > Advaitic realization of non-dual awareness. > > In conclusion, while Buddhism provides valuable insights into the > nature of reality, Advaita Vedanta offers a more comprehensive > framework that accounts for both the changing phenomena and the > unchanging awareness that is their substrate. It is this unchanging, > ever-present consciousness that we call Brahman or Atman, the > realization of which leads to true and lasting freedom.

The Mrgendra Agama, A Saivite Hindu Agama text, in a certain chapter pertaining to the refutation of Rival schools makes the following criticism of the Buddhist position - > **cidyavañjakasya karmādeḥ kṣaṇikatvānmuhurmuhuḥ| vyajyate jāyamāneva > kṣaṇike matā paraiḥ|| 24** > > Due to the functions and operations of those instruments which help > for the manifestation of consciousness, cit (knowledge) appears to be > momentary, since those functions are of fractional duration. Not > knowing this, the Saugatas say that consciousness is momentary. > > **tadasatkarmaṇo bhogādātītānubhavasmṛteḥ| sthitirinanvaye nāśe na > smṛternāpi karmaṇaḥ|| 25||** > > **vināśa lakṣaṇopaiti na muktāvapyupaplavaḥ| na cāstyanubhavaḥ kaścit > bhāvāvasthā varaṃ tataḥ|| 26||** > > This view of momentariness is untenable. If consciousness itself is > momentary, the experience of meritorious and sinful effects and the > remembrance of previous experiences cannot occur. Because > consciousness which occurs at one moment perishes at the next moment > itself. How could the effect of karmas done by one man be experienced > by another man? > > Or, how could the experience attained by one man be > remembered by another man? Because of the ascertained occurrence of > the karmic effects and remembrance, it is to be deduced that the self > is essentially eternal; not momentary. > > There is another defect in the > concept of momentariness of the self. Can the occurrence of > uninterrupted continuity of momentary-self be considered as > liberation? Or, can the pacified and stilled state of consciousness > itself after knowing the object, just like the extinguished beam of a > lamp, be considered as the state of liberation? If it is the case of > former, then, even in the state of liberation, the continuity of the > momentary self frequently gets destroyed. If it is the case of latter, > then, there is no experience of bliss in the extinguished state of the > self. Therefore, when compared to this kind of blissless liberation, > "to be enmeshed in the transmigratory phenomena" is more preferable; > more superior. ~ Mrgendra Agama, Vidya Pada, 2.24-26 How would a Buddhist respond to this critique philosophically?

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).

Professor VV Gokhale in a paper titled "The Vedanta-Philosophy described by Bhavya in his Madhyamakahrdaya" (Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1958) discusses a work named mAdhyamakahridaya by Bhavya, a sixth century mAdhyamaka buddhist. In the discussion, He refers to a situation where the mahAyAna school is criticised as being similar to vedAnta in the said work. In reply, Apparently Bhavya says that whatever is good in the upaniShads has also been taught by the Buddha. To cite- > In one of the chapters of the **Madhyamakahridaya** dealing with the > hInayAna objections to mahAyAna, the hInayAna-buddhist criticises the > mahAyAna buddhist saying;- > > **न बुद्धोक्तिर्महायानं सूत्रान्तादावसंग्रहात् | मार्गान्तरोपदेषात् वा > यथा वेदान्तदर्शनम् ||** > > The mAhAyAna teaching was not spoken of by the Buddha, either because > it is not included in the sUtrAntas, or because like the vedAnta > darshana, it teaches heretic paths to salvation. > > To this attack, the mahAyAnist replies - > > **वेदान्ते च हि यत् सूक्तम् तत् सर्वं बुद्धभाषितम् | दृष्टान्तन्यूनता > तस्मात् संदिग्धं वा परीक्ष्यताम् ||** > > **Whatever is well said in the vedAnta (upaniShads) has been taught by > the Buddha.** The various examples cited by the hInayAna are faulty and > what is doubtful must be examined. Questions- 1. Is that a unanimous view among the Mahayana Buddhists that Buddha's teachings were inspired from vedanta? 2. How would adherents from other schools of buddhism view the statements of Bhavya?

I am new to Buddhism & exploring it. Recently I came across this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6E8er3XqN0) which made me ask few questions & they are:
1)They have shown image of Lord Shiva at 13:50 above the baby(Lord Buddha). Even in Hinduism Buddha is considered one the avatars of Lord Vishnu. So is there a connection between Buddha,Shiva & Vishnu.
2)Lastly in this video they said child's(Buddha) parents are Brahmins. So was Buddha a 'Hindu Brahmin' before he attained enlightenment?

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 buddhist works that specifically criticize or refute the Vedantic concept of Atman. Any help would be appreciated.

In Hinduism, as per Dharmashastras, Puranas and several other scriptures, charity should only be given to brahmanas learned in Vedas and nobody else. Every other person, no matter how poor they are, are 'apatreya' (unfit for getting charity). Does Buddhism also have such criteria for dana? Should charity only be given to monks or such?

There has been many questions on whether Gautama Buddha was casteist or not. The answer to that is, of course he was. Majjhima Nikaya > If, sometime or other, at the end of a long period, that fool comes back to the human state, it is into a low family that he is reborn - into a family of outcasts or hunters or bamboo-workers or cartwrights or scavengers - one that is poor with little to eat and drink, surviving with difficulty, where he scarcely finds food and clothing... AN 5.191 > In the past, brahman males mated only with brahman females and not with non-brahman females. At present, brahman males mate with brahman females and with non-brahman females. At present, male dogs mate only with female dogs and not with female non-dogs. This is the first ancient brahmanical tradition that is now observed among dogs but not among brahmans... Astasahasrika ch 25 > A Bodhisattva who trains thus is not reborn in the hells, nor among animals, nor in the realms of the Pretas, nor among the Asuras, nor in outlying districts [among barbarous populations], nor in the families of outcasts or fowlers, of hunters, fishermen or butchers, nor in the other low class families of that kind, in which one is addicted to low deeds It is pretty much established that yes, he was a casteist. Buddhism seems to regard him as Lord and often Infallible. Yet, most Buddhists doesn't seem to be too casteist. I am guessing the attitude towards caste changed. My question is, what changed this? Did you guys get influenced by Abrahamic religions or did you guys change by yourself? How do you separate yourselves from the stance that Gautama Buddha took? I asked Hindus how they are not casteist. Most of them responded they indeed believe in caste and justified it, while others simply said 'times are different'. When looked into Hindu history, we understand it was Abrahamic religions that made them change their stance. My question to you guys is what made Buddhists change? Or are Buddhists mostly secretly casteist too?

I was just answering a question on Hindu.SE as to whether Ithihasas were copies of Jatakas. While looking for sources I found two Ghata Jatakas found on different sites. [WisLib Ghata Jataka](https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/jataka-tales-english/d/doc80525.html) [Sacred Text Ghata Jataka](https://sacred-texts.com/bud/j4/j4018.htm) Why two Jatakas after the same name?