"Was Angulimāla, the bandit-turned-disciple of the Buddha, a historical figure or a purely symbolic character in Buddhist literature? What evidence supports either view?"

So, I'm not a Buddhist, but my understanding is that in Buddhist thought, existence is the root of suffering, and Buddhists seek to end suffering by attaining a state of spiritual enlightenment that, after death, will cause them to cease to exist instead of reincarnating ("Nirvana"). Since this spiritual oblivion is viewed as a good thing by Buddhists as a result, and that existence is viewed as a bad thing that causes suffering, why aren't there any murderous Buddhists that seek to bring about this oblivion more directly by killing everyone? You can't reincarnate into a new life if there's no new lives to reincarnate into, after all. Even if reincarnating into animals might be possible, you could prevent that by systematically wiping out all life on Earth down to the smallest microbe. However, I've never heard of any Buddhist sects that actively seek to murder everybody. Why is this the case, when it seems like "murder everybody" could very easily be a logical conclusion of the Buddhist belief system? Have there actually been these sorts of Buddhist death-cults in the past, that simply haven't survived to the modern day (presumably due to having been violently suppressed by the governments of the nations they lived in once they started trying to murder everyone)?

Are there consequences for actions that are made Are there rewards for the actions that are made

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?

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.

I know it's discouraged for Buddhists to intoxicate their body, but were there any known cases of monks using psychedelic drugs intentionally in the past?

I have head psychedelic drugs described as a gateway that can lead people to Buddhism, and to very powerful meditation practice. I have also heard the drugs were frowned upon by ancient Buddhist teachings. What do you know about the ancient and modern Buddhist attitudes toward these drugs?

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.

India is the original land of Buddhism, but it is followed/practiced more outside its country of birth. Are there any reasons for this?

Here is another non-essential question born from a dead thing. Is Pali the native language of Buddha's birth town? Apparently the Shakyas are bilingual (according to wiki), and they derived from a **Munda** people (according to wiki). Was Pali spoken by Munda people? It makes me wonder if Buddha uttered, muttered the Pali b/c he was unfamiliar with it, or b/c maybe the language was a spontaneous birth? Instead, was Pali native to Magadha - according to wiki Buddha was born north of Magadha - where Buddha enlightened? wiki (unreliable source) says : > Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, lived much of his life in the > kingdom of Magadha. He attained enlightenment in Bodh Gaya,

At the time of Tathagat Buddha, Hindu religion in its current form did not exist. However, there were Vedic teachings. These teachings were based on blind belief in the authority of the Vedas. There were many different schools of philosophy *opposing* Vedic teaching, e.g. Akriyavada, Niyativada (determinism), Ucchedavada etc. As far as I know, the Buddha opposed Vedic religion. He opened a strong camp against it and freed people from the exploitative teachings of Veda. He expounded equality as opposed to the Vedic teachings which discriminated between different classes. Is it true that Buddhism (since time of Buddha) opposed Vedic (and later Brahminical) religion?

How many miles(kilometers) did Buddha walk during his life? According to one source , "*The entire pilgrimage route is within the span of about 350 miles east to west and 250 miles north to south, and the Buddha is known to have walked across it many times.*"

Is there any historical evidence or sayings that Buddha went to America and Africa continent for some discourses or teachings? In their writings, local languages or any painting, drawing?

My understanding is that the Buddha took many teachings and concepts already existing in his society and renewed them when needed, giving them a meaning in accord with his understanding. Is it correct? I guess he introduced new teachings and concepts as well. My question is: which one were already existing and which one are introduced by the Buddha? - 4 noble truths - 8 fold noble path - 5 khandha - 6 sense bases, 6 sense objects and 6 consciousnesses - 4 brahmavihārā - 4 right efforts - 4 jhāna - 5 precepts - 3 jewels - 4 gratitudes (parents, teachers, friends, all beings) - 4 kinds of nutriments - 7 factors of awakening - 6 paramitas - ānāpānassati - satipaṭṭhāna - nibbāna - saṃsāra - interdependent co-arising - anattā, dukkhā and anicca - sila, samadhi and prajna - rebirth and previous lives Please add to this list if something important is missing. In gratitude

I'm wondering if anything is known about the origin of this formulation, which is ostensibly a summary of the first noble truth: >"Life is suffering" Beyond whether this is a poor summary or translation: where did it come from? An English-language popularizer, maybe?

I have recently started studying the teachings of Buddhism, so I have a lot of questions that I can't find an answer to yet. Help me understand Buddhism better. Thanks. What types of disputes are there? What does the teaching of Buddhism say about disputes? Is it necessary to take part in disputes?

In a recent Buddhist Geeks podcast the presenter Bodhipaksa stated that by the time the Buddhagosa wrote the commentary Visuddhimagga in the 5th Century CE, meditation had been largely abandoned. He goes on to state that there is good evidence that 500 years previously Buddhist monks had given up meditation and felt the best they could do was to pass down the Buddhist texts to further generations. To what extent is this analysis of Buddhism true? Was meditation really not practiced for a large proportion of Buddhist history? If this is the case then when was meditation 'rediscovered' or at least reinvigorated?

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.

It is traditionally believed that the Buddha was born, enlightened and passed away on the date(*tithi*) of Vesak. Now it does not seem to be very probable that all three major incidents of one's life would occur on the same date. What is the earliest source of this information about Vesak in the scripture?

Vesak Day is coming, some monastery offering a baby bathing during the event. What is the story behind about this? Is it appropriate?