I am learning Mahayana. Today I came across a question on web “ Why Buddha taught Trisvabhava or three natures?”. I was surprised because reality is empty of any essence but I found the word svabhava in Trisvabhavanirdesa which means three self becoming teachings. I am aware of three lakhshana or three marks of existence. Is there any sutta or sutra where Buddha mentions three svabhavas ?

Kundalini yoga, as described in certain Hindu tantric lineages, describes the process of awakening a dormant spiritual energy located at the base of the spine. This energy is said to rise through a central channel, activating chakras along the way, and facilitating transformative shifts in consciousness leading to liberation. I am curious whether similar concepts or practices are found in Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhism. Specifically, do these schools recognize a comparable energy system involving chakras or subtle body channels? Are there practices aimed at awakening and directing this energy in a way that parallels Kundalini yoga? References to authoritative texts, tantric commentaries, or the instructions of qualified teachers within these lineages would be especially welcome.

At the risk of being overly simplistic, it seems that Mahayana traditions have dedicated their intellectual efforts to developing the idea of **Emptiness (śūnyatā)**, starting from Nagarjuna, through Dogen, and extending to the modern Kyoto School. - As you might notice, these examples are biased towards the Japanese branch, which I'm personally more interested in, but other examples also exist, of course. I was trying to locate medieval or modern Mahayanic systematic discussions of **Upādāna** and **Taṇhā**. I was hoping that these ideas were discussed and interpreted in light of the emptiness idea. However, it seems that they have lost intellectual focus. - If it's indicative of anything, the Wikipedia page for Upādāna says the Japanese is "shu", and the one for Taṇhā says the Japanese is "katsu ai". But I couldn't find any meaningful results using these terms in the context of Buddhism. Are there any notable examples of systemaic discussions of Upādāna and Taṇhā in Mahayana Buddhism (particularly within Japanese traditions)?

According to the suttas in SN13 , a stream enterer (or stream winner or sotapanna ) only has at most, seven remaining lifetimes, before they are permanently freed from suffering. On the other hand, takers of the Mahayana Bodhisattva vow , would forego enlightenment for a very long time (apparently aeons), till they complete the full Bodhisattva training (which I presume is the development of paramitas and the attainment of bhumis ). However, this implies that they need to avoid stream entry, which could cause them to become released from suffering in seven lifetimes at most. So, how do they avoid stream entry? Do they avoid it by avoiding the practice of insight meditation (vipassana ) perhaps?

Does the middle way -- **between annihilationism and eternalism** -- apply to objects? Like a mountain, will it either exist forever or be destroyed, or is it too the middle way? > The expression “middle way” refers to the Buddhist understanding of > practical life, avoiding the extremes of self-denial and > self-indulgence, as well as the view of reality that avoids the > ***extreme positions of eternalism and annihilationism***. That is one way of reading the meaning of 'middle way'. Do objects -- supposing they exist -- we have consciousness of have substance, according to any Mahayana Buddhists? That seems to ask the same question, I'm not sure.

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/80747 "POM1: Presume that other minds can be perceived. Then, they shall be like external forms and have no real existence. POM2: Presume that other minds can be perceived and still have real existence. This epistemic realism contradicts the idealist position held by the Yogācārins, insofar as there is one type of really-existed objects that can be directly given to one’s mind and this givenness is independent of one’s own mind. POM3: Presume that other minds cannot be perceived. Then, the doctrine of consciousness- only also becomes untenable, because there is one type of objects that falls outside of the scope of one’s experience." "Other minds are then perceived through the second-person perspective." **That is, when the Yogacarin communicates with other people, does he directly communicate with other minds? Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just imaginations created by his mind Thank you.**

Why use a word thought by some to be offensive even if the meaning isn't meant to be offensive? There is no other word that can be used? Would using another word (or phrase) be compassionate towards those who might get offended by it's use even if the intent wasn't to offend or provoke? Is "Hinayana" so sacred, useful and descriptive that it must be used even when talking to an audience that likely has people in it who would be offended?

*Sorry; part of this question is described in Chinese, as I cannot find their Pali or Sanskrit script; even if I can, I can't read them.* The Saddharmapundarika Sutra (法华经) quoted Buddha (Sakyamuni himself) once said about "Saddharma Vipralopa (末法)", the Ending Era in which Buddhism would become unpopular and weak (转复微末，谓末法时). Later commentary scripts claimed Buddha said "there is 500 years of correct Buddism, 1000 years of similar Buddhism and 3000 years of Ending Buddhism after my nirvana" (然佛所说，我灭度后，正法五百年，像法一千年，末法三千年). This saying is believed to be real but also there are different interpretation. Some source said Samyuktagama (杂阿含经) mentioned Ending Era (Saddharma Vipralopa) much earlier, but I didn't find. Based on the idea that Buddha said "500+1000 years after his nirvana, it is the Ending Era", the Mahayana Jingtu faction (净土宗) and 净土-influenced Tiantai faction (天台宗) thus believe we are now in the Ending Era of Buddhism, and developed a full system of getting liberated in this current era. These are, however, not accepted by Zen faction (禅宗), another major Mahayana faction in China. Zen believe the Ending Era is real but it is not that bad and the timetable is not referring to real time. > 末世众生愚痴钝根，不解如来三大阿僧祇秘密之说，遂言成佛尘劫未期，岂不疑误行人退菩提道。 I want to know, are these 3 creeds (below) also accepted in other factions of Buddhism, especially different factions of Theravada out of Sinosphere? Or, are these thoughts denied or left intentionally not to discuss? 1. There is an Ending Era of Buddhism after Buddha's nirvana. 2. The Ending Era is very bad, Buddhism becomes unpopular and wrong, and people are too stupid to get nirvana by themselves. 3. We are currently in this Ending Era. --------------- I think maybe some faction may deny the idea of Ending Era; for example, another translated book named "Ekottara Āgama (增壹阿含经)" said the Buddhism after Buddha will last forever and gain billions of believers. > 佛告阿难曰。我灭度之后。法当久存......东方弟子无数亿千。南方弟子无数亿千。是故。阿难。当建此意。我释迦文佛寿命极长。所以然者。肉身虽取灭度。法身存在。此是其义。当念奉行。 Maybe some of them is fake, wrong, or intepreted mistakenly. I don't know, and don't want to discuss which is correct and which is wrong, they are all ancient and said to be translated from India. My question is only, is there any other faction believe "it's the Ending Era now, the End is nigh!".

I wonder if Mahayanabhikkhus can perform a Theravadin ordination and have the ordination be recognized as valid by the Theravadin bhikkhusangha without doing dalhikamma? What if the theravadins do a dalhikamma for a monk who took theravadin ordination performed by mahayana monks? Can he get full acceptance in the Theravada then? If not, can a dalhikamma be performed for the Mahayana monks as to make them eligible to perform Theravadin ordinations or must they re-ordain as Theravadins? Finally, can a monk be considered to have full ordination in both mahayana and theravada?

In some Traditions - possibly Mahayana and/or Tibetan - Achala is translated as the immovable, which is sometimes depicted as a diety. This seems quite similar to, or the same as, equanimity (Upekkha), which is a term found in generous amounts throughout the Pali Cannon. In my personal understanding, a mind imbued with equanimity is a mind free from conditionality. Although karmic imprints still appear, one sees very quickly the nature of their deceptions. When they surface, they cannot get a foothold on anything. In Theravada, there are some references that indicate this: the Buddha and his chief disciples would sometimes call out, 'I see you Mara'. They were simply recognizing their own karmic imprints, (desires to think, say or do things that were unwholesome). Equanimity is when you are not moved by these inner sensations. They don't become actions (karmas). So, does Achala mean the same thing as equanimity (Upekkha)? If not, how are the two terms different?

This question is inspired by this online video : A lady asked a Rinpoche 3 questions, that translate to (a bit complicated logics here): > 1. Is Tulku's (Living Buddha)'s reincarnation process predetermined by his/her Karma(Karmaphala) or by Willpower(Praṇidhāna) ? > > Some explanations: Here she was actually asking, that by Buddhism doctrines, the *fact* that (bodhisattva) reincarnation will *happen* is result of Praṇidhāna, but is the *process* or *outcome* also determined by Praṇidhāna? Or like all other Sentients, that it is determined by Karmaphala? > > 2. If reincarnation is mainly determined by Karma, does a Tulku still have Karma? Why can bodhisattva still be affected and get life determined by > Karmaphala? Shouldn't a Tulku be already liberated from (Karma-driven) Saṃsāra or at least have already purified his/her Karma in his first life? > > 3. If reincarnation is mainly determined by Praṇidhāna, why would next-generation Tulku still need to be selected, to study his/her > knowledge before, to suffer from real-life setbacks? Why does his/her > Praṇidhāna determine his/her life to be so? In the video this Rinpoche said: > 1. He believes he is mainly affected by Karma, but many other greater Tulkus believe reincarnation is determined by Praṇidhāna. But he didn't explain why he or the others think so. > 2. Either by Karma or by Praṇidhāna, the setbacks that real-life Tulkus meet (*e.g. forgetting many knowledge after > reincarnation*) makes a Tulku more human-like, and that make people > believe in him/her because people think Tulku and theirselves are equal. I am confused on this too - shouldn't people believe in him/her more firmly if Tulku is more god-like? Like Jesus Christ revived and ascended, everyone saw this will believe in him. I also asked Deepseek R1, it says something similar like the Rinpoche said in the video, plus > Tulku can purify the Karma in their every new life in order to help achieve the Praṇidhāna will. I think here Deepseek indicates, every reincarnation brings new karma. after reincarnation and before Karma is fully purified, a Tulku is still predetermined by Karmaphala. Also I find a video from a much respected Taiwan Mahayana monk's view, Bodhisattva's reincarnation relies on both Praṇidhāna and Karmaphala . A Tulku is a Vajrayana Buddhist Lama who has taken the *bodhisattva vow*, but still different from Mahayana bodhisattva. I believe this is an open, speculatve, theoretical question. I want to listen what more others think about this question, and think about the above Rinpoche's explanation. Any view is welcomed.

What is the meaning of "her way of turning her head" below? > By her smile and her looks, > > Her pride and her false modesty, > > **Her way of turning her head** or closing her eyes, > > Her fine words and her fits of anger and jealousy > > The provocativeness of her walk, > > > Woman drives a man mad. > > The net of lust is full: > > All men are caught in it. > > Whether she is seated, lying down, walking or standing, > > A glance, a lifting of the eyebrow is enough > > For the inexperienced fool > > To be completely intoxicated by her. Source: Maha Prajnaparamita Sastra , part 2.3 (Indifference toward women), written by Nagarjuna, and translated by Gelongma Karma Migme Chödrön.

I got introduced to this "Female Buddha" when I was looking name for my friend's daughter. So what does female Buddha mean? **Wikipedia :** >[Tara (Buddhism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_(Buddhism)) Tara (Sanskrit: तारा, tārā; Tib. སྒྲོལ་མ, Dölma), Ārya Tārā, or Shayama Tara, also known as Jetsun Dölma (Tibetan language: rje btsun sgrol ma) in Tibetan Buddhism, is an important figure in Buddhism. She appears as a female bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism, and as a female Buddha in Vajrayana Buddhism. She is known as the "mother of liberation", and represents the virtues of success in work and achievements. She is known as Tara Bosatsu (多羅菩薩) in Japan, and occasionally as Duōluó Púsà (多羅菩薩) in Chinese Buddhism. My question is what does this concept mean **is she a person who appeared in past who's name is Tara**? Or **is it philosophical concept that meditators seen she's appearing?** Also why this is not exist in **Thervada Buddhism** when statue is in **Bihar** state of **India?**

A Mahayana-practising member wrote this comment : > With respect, the Theravada generally has a much more coarse > understanding of emptiness and anatta and is confused as to the object > of negation. In much the way that placing a bag of ice on a gushing > head wound has some efficacy, yet is utterly incapable of actually > curing the wound the Theravada understanding anatta doctrine is very > helpful, but insufficient to provide a genuine antidote to ignorance > and hence suffering ..... The Mahayana tenet systems ... > believe Theravada adherents are not ready to understand, > but will understand the selflessness of phenomena eventually as they > continue to progress on the path. I would like to understand the perspective of Mahayana Buddhists on why Theravada's anatta (and dependent origination) doctrine is "*insufficient to provide a genuine antidote to ignorance and hence suffering*" compared to Mahayana's sunyata (emptiness) doctrine?

Śāntideva's *Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra* is a renowned Mahayana text and the source of many ideas, prayers and practices, down to today, particularly the Bodhisattva ideal, Bodhicitta, and practices for achieving it. Śāntideva wrote it in the 8th-century CE (with a miraculous story to go with it), and it was a major source of Atiśa's teachings in India and Tibet in the 11th-century CE. Atiśa learned about it from Dharmakīrtiśrī (Tibetan: Serlingpa), an Indonesian master, particularly the eighth chapter on practices for the development of Bodhicitta, according to commonly accepted history. Since then, it has become a standard part of the Mahayana literature across Asia and the world. My question: are there any extant references to the *Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra* **between those dates -- its origin in the 8th-century and Atiśa's 11th-centuries teachings** -- commentaries or other mentions? The Indian Mahayana was at its peak in those years, prior to its decline in the wake of various invasions, so it stands to reason that the *Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra* would have been a significant part of it. Or did Serlingpa and Atiśa resurrect it from a relatively unknown, under-appreciated state? ------------ Addendum 1/6/2021 -- The fact that Atiśa had to go to Indonesia for twelve years to study Bodhicitta and its practices with Serlingpa suggests that the subject was indeed under-appreciated in India prior to Atiśa, even at the great centers such as Nalanda and Vikramaśilā (where Atiśa was abbot upon return from Indonesia). That all raises the question of ancient Mahayana history in Indonesia, which seems little studied or documented, at least in English.

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 read the following on the internet: > Vipassana, the tranquil mind, is the core. > > When emotions arise, the tranquil mind observes and assesses before > the conscious is involved. > >The tranquil mind will recognise the burning heart and dualise > the self. When the self becomes two, the emotions don't rule the mind > and the mind doesn't rule the emotions. Is vipassana the tranquil mind? Does the tranquil mind observe before the arising of consciousness? What is meant by dualizing the self? How does the tranquil mind dualize the self? How does the dualized self stop emotions not ruling the mind?

Does a person cultivating bodhicitta qualify as a bodhisattva? Or to qualify as a bodhisattva, does one need to have levelled-up to some degree in the perfection of the great perfections. I have seen/heard this discussed before, but it was a while ago and I can't remember where I would find the references. I'm not sure any answers to this question would have a major impact on the actual application of cultivating bodhicitta, but I would enjoy exploring the concepts around it. This is my first question on Stack Exchange, so I am open to feedback about whether the format and content of my question is suitable for this forum.

>the Aṣṭā­daśa­sāhasrikā­prajñā­pāramitā: > >Furthermore, Subhūti, you should know that a sentient being is nonexistent because a self is nonexistent. You should know that a living being, a creature, one who lives, an individual, a person, one born of Manu, a child of Manu, one who does, one who feels, one who knows, and one who sees is nonexistent because a sentient being is nonexistent. You should know that the very limit of reality is nonexistent because … one who knows and one who sees is nonexistent. You should know that space is nonexistent because the very limit of reality is nonexistent. You should know that the Great Vehicle is nonexistent because space is nonexistent. You should know that the infinite, the countless, and that which is beyond measure [F.201.b] are nonexistent because the Great Vehicle is nonexistent, and you should know that all dharmas are nonexistent because that which is beyond measure is nonexistent. Therefore, Subhūti, the Great Vehicle has room for infinite, countless beings beyond measure. And why? Subhūti, it is because a self, up to one who knows and one who sees, the very limit of reality, space, the Great Vehicle, the infinite, the countless, that which is beyond measure, up to all dharmas all cannot be apprehended. And why? Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom do not see form; do not see feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness; do not see eyes; do not see ears, nose, tongue, body, or thinking mind; do not see a form, a sound, a smell, a taste, a feeling, or a dharma; do not see ignorance; do not see volitional factors, consciousness, name and form, the six sense fields, contact, feeling, craving, appropriation, existence, birth, or old age and death; do not see greed; do not see hatred or confusion; do not see a self; do not see a being, a living being, one who lives, an individual, a person, one born of Manu, a child of Manu, one who does, one who feels, one who knows, or one who sees; do not see the desire realm; do not see the form realm or formless realm; do not see śrāvakas and the śrāvaka dharmas; do not see pratyekabuddhas and the pratyekabuddha dharmas; do not see bodhisattvas and do not see bodhisattva dharmas; do not see buddhas [F.68.b] and do not see buddha dharmas; do not see awakening, up to do not see all dharmas. And while not seeing all dharmas they do not tremble, feel frightened, or become terrified.” My question is : Are all sentient beings non existent as the sutra claims ?

What exactly is svabhāva in Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka? It is translated as inherent nature or inherent existence or inherent substance. But what does that **really** mean? Does it carry the same meaning as being unconditioned? If yes, then Nirvana and the Buddha's Dharma, being unconditioned, must have svabhāva. But they don't, according to Madhyamaka. Why does a chair or a photon or empty space or concepts or the Dharma (teachings) or Nirvana have no svabhāva? From the Wikipedia article on Madhyamaka, it sounds like something that is unconditioned has svabhāva. But that's not right according to Madhyamaka. > Nagarjuna's critique of the notion of own-nature > argues that **anything which arises according to conditions, as all > phenomena do, can have no inherent nature, for what is depends on what > conditions it.** Moreover, if there is nothing with own-nature, there > can be nothing with 'other-nature' (para-bhava), i.e. something which > is dependent for its existence and nature on something else which has > own-nature. Furthermore, if there is neither own-nature nor > other-nature, there cannot be anything with a true, substantial > existent nature (bhava). If there is no true existent, then there can > be no non-existent (abhava).