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.

I am interested in knowing how buddhism diminished in India. 1 year back, I read this book: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/History_Of_Hindu_Imperialism.html?id=51dWPgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y But the author is not a historian. Can you tell me references by Historians about how Buddhism diminished from India?

An important compendium of the ancient Indian philosophical schools - called Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha - was written in India in 14th century CE by Madhvacharya (a non-Buddhist Indian Philosopher) who gives an intriguing account of the debate between ancient Indian materialists (the Charvaka) and the extent Buddhist schools of thought in India at that time. He describes the Charvaka thus: > Chárváka, the crest-gem of the **atheistical school**, the follower of the > doctrine of Bṛihaspati. The efforts of Chárváka are indeed hard to be > eradicated, for **the majority of living beings hold by the current > refrain**— > > While life is yours, live joyously; > None can escape Death's searching eye: > When once this frame of ours they burn, > How shall it e'er again return? > > The mass of men, in accordance with the Śástras of policy and > enjoyment, considering wealth and desire the only ends of man, **and > denying the existence of any object belonging to a future world**, are > found to follow only the doctrine of Chárváka. Hence another name for > that school is Lokáyata,—a name well accordant with the thing > signified. This characterization would appear quite in accordance with descriptions in sutta of the Charvaka school and its tenets: > "When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there > is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no > fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no > next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no > brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, > proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and > realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary > elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with > the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with > the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the > external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the > external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four > men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are > sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn > pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by > idiots. **The words of those who speak of existence after death are > false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the > foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after > death.**' ---------- This compendium describes the Buddhist response to the Charvaka school as a direct attack on their understanding of causation vs correlation. Succinctly put, it would appear the Charvaka did not believe in causation, but rather only believed in correlation: > "Be it so," says the opponent; "your wish would be gained if > inference, &c., had no force of proof; but then they have this force; > else, if they had not, then how, on perceiving smoke, should the > thoughts of the intelligent immediately proceed to fire; or why, on > hearing another say, 'There are fruits on the bank of the river,' do > those who desire fruit proceed at once to the shore?" > > All this, however, is only the inflation of the world of fancy. > ... > **Hence by the impossibility of knowing the universality of a > proposition it becomes impossible to establish inference**, &c. > > The step which the mind takes from the knowledge of smoke, &c., to the > knowledge of fire, &c., can be accounted for by its being based on a > former perception or by its being an error; and that in some cases > this step is justified by the result, is accidental just like the > coincidence of effects observed in the employment of gems, charms, > drugs, &c. > > From this it follows that fate, &c., do not exist, since these can > only be proved by inference. But an opponent will say, if you thus do > not allow adṛishṭa, the various phenomena of the world become > destitute of any cause. > > But we cannot accept this objection as valid, since these phenomena > can all be produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things. > Thus it has been said— > > The fire is hot, the water cold, refreshing cool the breeze of morn; > By whom came this variety? from their own nature was it born. > The author of the work then gives the known Buddhist reply at the time in ancient India. This can be succinctly summarized as denial of causation leads to practical absurdities. NOTE: invariable concomitance is a term of art in ancient Indian debate that is described here. > At this point the Buddhists remark: As for what you (Chárvákas) laid > down as to the difficulty of ascertaining invariable concomitance, > your position is unacceptable, inasmuch as invariable concomitance is > easily cognisable by means of identity and causality. It has > accordingly been said— > > "From the relation of cause and effect, or from identity as a > determinant, results a law of invariable concomitance—not through the > mere observation of the desired result in similar cases, nor through > the non-observation of it in dissimilar cases." > > On the hypothesis (of the Naiyáyikas) that it is concomitance and > non-concomitance (e.g., A is where B is, A is not where B is not) that > determine an invariable connection, the unconditional attendance of > the major or the middle term would be unascertainable, it being > impossible to exclude all doubt with regard to instances past and > future, and present but unperceived. If one (a Naiyáyika) rejoin that > uncertainty in regard to such instances is equally inevitable on our > system, we reply: **Say not so, for such a supposition as that an effect > may be produced without any cause would destroy itself by putting a > stop to activity of any kind; for such doubts alone are to be > entertained, the entertainment of which does not implicate us in > practical absurdity and the like, as it has been said, "Doubt > terminates where there is a practical absurdity.**" Which seems in accordance with the ancient Indian Nagarjuna's opening verse of his famous treatise: ---------- Based on this my questions are: 1. Does the non-Buddhist author of this work accurately describe Charvaka views and tenets at the time? 2. Does the non-Buddhist author of this work accurately describe Buddhist replies at the time? 3. Why was it deemed important to the ancient Indian schools (Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike) this debate over causation vs correlation? 4. If you accept the Buddhist view in this debate as superior, then how does it undermine the views and tenets of the Charvaka? 5. Is it true that the Charvaka school was the most popular in ancient India at the time this compendium was written? 6. What do we know of how prevalent was the Charvaka school in the time of the Buddha? 7. If the Charvaka school was very prevalent in the time of the Buddha and granting the supposition that some hold - that the Buddha only taught rebirth as a fictional contrivance to appeal to the people of his time and age - then why did the Buddha also teach rebirth to the people who steadfastly rejected it? (please only answer this if you actually believe this supposition as that's all I'm interested in...)

On the occasion of diwali I've to ask, should Indian Buddhists celebrate diwali? Because recently I've read dark history behind diwali: - That Tathagata Gautama Buddha had entrusted the team with the Saraiputa and Mahamoggalan. He made Dhanmaseva for 44 years. The entire generation of Kartik Purnima was performed. The 15-day Kartik Amavasa (New moon of November) Mahamoggalan was brutally murdered on the Isigil mountain, that day was of Diwali. - The last Buddhist king of Maurya Brahadrath, was brutally murdered by Brahmin commander Pushyamitra Shung. That day was of Kartik Amavassa(Diwali, New moon of November). The Buddhist power was overturned. The monks are slaughtered. Pushyamitra Sung left the decree for giving 100 gold coins to cut the monk's head. Viharas, Stupas was destroyed. That day was Kartik Amavasya (Diwali, New moon of November). - Conferred best King Bali of the Bahujana and was murdered in a fraudulent by vishnu. Their power, science, education, wealth were taken away. Their children were killed one after the other. On the day of Bali Pratipada, victim King Bali was assassinated. That day was Kartik Amavasya (Diwali, New moon of November). Therefore, Buddhists, the Bahujans(Indian backward people who being Buddhist after Dr. B. R Ambedkar gave gift of Buddhism to them) should not celebrate Diwali festival. But other thing is about diwali that Emperor Ashoka started the Digvijay campaign this day. The public had greeted them by burning lamps. Also In Buddhism, after 18 years, Gautam Buddha returned to Kapilavastu with followers on this day. Then Diwali was celebrated burning millions of lamps in their reception by the citizens. During his first discourse, Buddha gave a new dimension to Deepawali(Diwali) by preaching: >"Atha Deepa Bhava". So let me know with what perspective we have to celebrate or not this day? Cause there's no importance of new moon in Buddhism and observance day is on full moon.

My relatives ask me to suggest good names that must be Buddhist. I tried on internet but there are from other culture I want Indian names so what names or meaning should be?

I need some sources regarding the changes in the size of Buddhist populations since the death of Gautama Buddha, e.g. the number of Buddhists in what is modern day India from 410 BC until now, or just global historical data of Buddhist populations around the world since the religion started spreading. Exact sources would be great. This is part of a research paper I am doing, and partly out of pure curiousity as well. Thanks.

I am currently exploring why Buddhism declined in my country India. Most of internet sites tell me that it was because of islamic invasion, but then hinduism survived it. In my opinion, it is easy to follow Hinduism where you just have to worship a diety for material gains. However to understand Buddhism itself you need certain amount of intelligence and life experience. So the Indian kings must have found it easy to back Hinduism to reign as it bolsters desires to rule and perpetuate. What is your opinion on this?

**Question :** How to focus on one thing like a monk ( ideal one )? Is there a well defined meaning of word " focus " in buddhism? I want to learn the technique through which I can focus on one thing at a time like a monk.