This arose from [a comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/50712/how-did-the-original-mental-event-arise-according-to-dharmak%c4%abrtis-argument-for#comment84533_50721) that the Buddhist position on the beginning of such unanswerables is that they are beginningless. Incidentally, in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/24173/understanding-beginningless/24175#24175) , it was pointed out that the Pali terms “without discoverable” and “without knowable” were used to indicate that there were no definitive answers instead. My questions are as below: 1. Was this beginningless position a later creation and posited as a response to the question on how it all started? Any reference, if any, is appreciated. 2. Could this position be the result of a desire to defend why the Buddha did not give definitive answers and instead ended up in a pickle too (as pointed out by the linked answer above)? Whether it is *beginningless* or *without discoverable/knowable beginning*, the fact is there is **no definitive answers**. Thus, the same criticism would be leveraged against Buddhism. Some may argue that since Buddhism is not strictly a religion or ideology, such criticisms are irrelevant. However, as a Buddhist, I can’t help but wonder if there is a tenable/reasonable argument that I can adopt when pressed on these matters by outsiders?

**Last question**:- "Bramchariyavas has started" -> "ब्रह्मचर्यवास शुरू हुआ"। Did this "occur" to anyone in past and the same has been mentioned in books? What are the surrounding indications for the same occurence? I am open to any religion for its discussion but if outside Buddhism then it must be accompanied with proper explanation of this statement, work left to be done, resolutions done to move further, path leading to this statement etc. This might have occurred with few other things like images/world etc. indicating few other things, that's fine but this statement is must, as it is, without any beginning and ending with word "started". I have read only,

"bramchariyavas has been completed, what needed to be done has been done"

.. this occurred to gotama after achieving enlightenment. References in bits & pieces are also welcome. Anger looking collections are also welcome.

Have any important Buddhists made any claim/s about Krishnamurti's teachings? Especially (caveat I know nothing about this) his claim that > "Tell them **there is *nothing* to understand**" Bold emphasis is mine . or > He claimed that the demand for enlightenment was the only thing > standing in the way of enlightenment itself, if enlightenment existed > at all.

>I have been trying to think about Buddhism, Scientology and Gaia religions. They do not focus on a God but rather the eternal inner spirit and reincarnation. The best so far I have come up with is “Spiritual” or “Letsism” . Letsism is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcended reality. Or even “Dianetics” a Set of ideals and practices regarding the relationship between mind and body. Not sure yet. This is a quote from a Quora answer to What is the term for those who believe in God, but not in religion? and it got me curious. I know this has been asked before in a couple of different ways, but what is Buddhism? https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/11042/17739 tells us that >Buddhism is a nontheistic religion or philosophy (Sanskrit: dharma; Pali: dhamma) that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha, commonly known as the Buddha ("the awakened one"). > >[...] > >The foundations of Buddhist tradition and practice are the Three Jewels: > > - The Buddha – One who attains enlightenment by oneself, then teaches others to become enlightened; > > - The Dharma – the theory and practice taught by a self-enlightened Buddha; and > > - The Sangha – the community who attained enlightenment following the teachings of Buddha. The answer also points out that Buddhist traditions can incorporate >**Devotional practices** – non-theistic objects of devotion include the Buddha, past enlightened followers of the Buddha, Bodhisatvas, angels, gods, and living spiritual teachers. This seems to contradict the Quora quote when it said that Buddhism does not focus on a God. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/24902/17739 points out through the answers that Buddhism can be seen as a religion, but... >The Buddha did not ask for anyone to take his word with respect to Dhamma - things as they are. He asked people to not blindly obey, to not follow ritual, to not ignore or go against what they directly observe. In this respect, Buddhism is at its core a scientific method. > >[...] > >Most major religions accept testimony of the wise, seers, prophets etc as truths, as well as others from the above link [pramanas ]. Buddhism does not. So, going back to the Quora quote, is Buddhism - a form of Letsism — an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcended reality? - a ​form of Dianetics — a set of ideals and practices regarding the relationship between mind and body? Or, - aside from "new age Buddhism ", is it just purely a spiritual teaching based on a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects?

I feel guilty about eating non-vegetarian food (fish, eggs and chicken). I know Buddhist followers, brahmins (Hindus) and Jains follows strict rules for vegetarianism. Does eating any sort of meat have an impact on your overall mentality?

I've been looking into Buddhist concepts and the topic of infinite universes in existence popped up, and the Buddhist text called the "Abhidharmartha Pradipika" talks about infinite universes? And I was wondering what chapter/verse talks about it so I could look more into it.

For a good Buddhist , is to always avoid any cause that will create bad effect, as we can see clearly in the 4 noble truths for example. What is the Buddhist perspective during an hypotetic moment of tension , where antagonist religions that serve a demiurgic god for temporal power or maybe from a blind communist regime , will decide to manipulate and force pratictioners to not follow the Dharma anymore , closing monasteries , destroying sources , texts and deport and killing people in the name of an evil faith? (Look for example what the christians did in Europe in the last 1000 years or the muslim in the Kashmir region, chinese in Tibet and Jews in Palestine) Fight or get killed? I would like to have direct answers , not political nor mellifuous / hypocrite one.

I want to know that what is Buddhism and is it a religion or just a philosophy or a exercise ? I really want to know more about it , is there a book about learning Buddhism?

**Thero, Bhadanta, and Venerable..** are words for addressing the old monks, abbots in pagodas and/or temples. I really do not know how they are ranked in Buddhist Sangha. Which title is the highest... and what else?

Is there any authoritative sourced that a man can have more than one religion if he pleases?

Bread has flour and yeast. Therefore, a scientist can say that it is both an animal and a vegetable grain. Is there anything wrong with eating bread?

I am new to Tibetan but am interested in the Tibetan script versions of the texts. Not knowing much Tibetan script yet, I am not totally sure I am looking at the right thing and so wanted to clarify to see if these 23 items are the Perfection of Knowledge collection. The list of titles in Tibetan script I have found [here](http://read.84000.co/section/O1JC114941JC14665.html) . The first two or three I have found (I think) the corresponding Tibetan script text [here](https://github.com/7-rabbit/riff-text/tree/master/content/kangyur) (འབུམ། and ཉི་ཁྲི།, basically). In [that](https://github.com/7-rabbit/riff-text/tree/master/content/kangyur) collection, does it contain all 23 of these texts? If so, where would I find them? If not, do they exist elsewhere online in Tibetan etexts? If it's too complicated, primarily I'm interested if this collection has the 8000 line one, such as [here](https://github.com/7-rabbit/riff-text/tree/master/content/kangyur/%E0%BC%A0%E0%BC%A7%20%20%E0%BD%A4%E0%BD%BA%E0%BD%A2%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%95%E0%BE%B1%E0%BD%B2%E0%BD%93%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%A6%E0%BE%A3%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%9A%E0%BD%BC%E0%BD%82%E0%BD%A6%E0%BC%8D) ?

Siddhartha Gautama accepted as its close disciples some secular. They had the same chance to gain enlightenment, without practicing rituals, and without believing in everything he said or did. Looking at the big picture can show that Siddhartha's truth doesn't hide behind idealism or practicing specific rituals. By it's nature it is everywhere, and it's findable in everything. The Truth could be in any ritual or practice. **So isn't it out of context to create massive religious groups like we can see in modern Buddhism ?** **Isn't it against the nature itself of the truth, to mass share a specific view of it ?**

**Namo tassa bagavato arahanto samma sambuddhasa** (Sorry, I am not fluent) I go to a Catholic High School & I have a theology class that preaches only their truths & say it is the supreme truth above all & that if one does not believe so they will perish in the extreme notion of the eternal hell. I try my best to have no aversion toward other followings & I also take a genuine interest in them, but when it comes down to being metaphorically hit in the face with them every day, it can be hard to focus on my emotions toward other paths, as well as it can be hard for me to not get distorted by them & follow the Buddha's teachings. > What would one offer as advice to not sway from the Dhamma by distorted teaching while at > the same time not have hatred in general (due to their delusions & spreading of > so) towards other paths? Metta to all! :)

Read somewhere that Buddhism does not advocate to go away from the beliefs of a person. Or in a way accommodate one's rooted beliefs from childhood. The main objective of following the path of Buddha is for self-realization. That too not disturbing others and their beliefs. - Since Buddha advocated for education to all humankind without considering race or color, will it be like a revolutionary thought came before centuries (_like communism, socialism ..._)? - But most of the world refers to it as a religion. Is it because of the transformation to idol based community from a spiritual community created by Buddha? - Does Buddism has more affinity towards a free-thinking society based on modern science OR towards a ritual-based society based on fears that remind the mind to do good acts?

Kalama Sutta is a key part of the Buddhist teaching that tells you to question everything, not to blindly follow any dogma or teacher. This is one of the features that make this religion/philosophy so special however this view seems to be contradictory in many Buddhist circles. Many monks and Buddhists shave their heads and wear mallahs to identify themselves more with the doctrine (ego and attachment) or perhaps to fit in better within the "Buddhist gang" as if this dogma was the ultimate truth and they may get offended when you "dare" to question their "faith" or their idolized masters. They rarely question the Sangha with psychology, existential philosophy, other religions and they seem to fall in love with it following this process of dependency by illusionment/attachment/joy and ultimately doubt disillusionment/detachment/sadness which is clearly explained in the Buddhist sutra itself. Osel Hita (a Spaniard who has appointed by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of lama Yeshe) quit Buddhism and complained about how much suffering he had to endure during his childhood nevertheless this is rarely debated within Buddhist circles. In some Buddhist countries children are indoctrinated in the dogma therefore they see it as truth and don't question it therefore it is used as a political tool for the masses. It is true that the Sangha may have saved some peoples lives and so has the army, Scientology and the Christian Church but this has to do with psychology, purpose in life and mental health and it doesn't make Buddhism any better. Meditation has been proven by the World Health Organization to be beneficial for mental health nevertheless you don't hear much from monks that you don't really need to be a Buddhist to meditate. Some features of the dogma such us Bardos , Rebirth or (reincarnation), Samsara or even Enlightenment have vague definitions or are impossible to double check because they are based of the subjective experiences of masters or monks and it's up to the practitioner to believe them or not and have the same credibility has "original sin, virgin birth, Heaven, etc." and even less than the Simulation Hypothesis . Some people left Buddhism because their views on the oneness of consciousness or karma were not compatible with the view shared by the particular sect (Zen, Chan, Tibetan, etc). Siddhārtha Gautama was a dissident of believes the vedas to attain enlightenment and escape the wheel so Samsara so was Jesus Christ , and Lao Tse and the main spiritual figures in human history. **Isn't Kalama Sutta encouraging you to do just that? Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases? Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?** *This question is an adaptation of the Reptilian Conspiracy vs Buddhism question which was not accepted in this forum and Criticism on the Buddhism from Wikipedia and both articles here and here .* > “A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he > generally believes to be true.“ Demosthenes 384-322 BC > > “Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want > their illusions destroyed.” Friedrich Nietzsche > > “You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not > based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe” Carl > Sagan > > “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at > least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” ― > René Descartes > > “My religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God. > Non-violence is the means of realising Him.“ Mahatma Gandhi > > John 8:32 “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you > free.” > > “There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not > going all the way, and not starting.” Buddha? (or not...doesn't > matter)

According to the suttas, the then Bodhisatta Gotama discovered by himself that ascetic practices of his contemporary India were not enough (or were even wrong) to attain complete enlightenment. Then, after trying his own methods and intuitions, he reached Nibbana. However, many so-called saint men from other religions and traditions are said to have reached enlightenment in their own terms and according to their own definitions of enlightenment. We even have people within Buddhism itself claiming to have awaken, but still showing signs of craving and unethical behavior. Considering what I've written, why should we deposit our trust, time and effort in the Buddhadhamma, when there are so many other practioners assuring that they have reached their ultimate goals following their own practices? The most common argument for following the teachings of the Buddha is that when put in practice by ourselves we'll see how effective and accurate the teachings, analyses and practices actually are. But the same can be said about most other religions. We have a lot of examples of men and women through history telling stories and personal experiences of feeling the supreme love of god, or attaining Moksha, or becoming one with the Universe, and so on. Can you help me to find new perspectives to solve this problem? Thanks for your time!

I am quite fond and connect deeply to the Buddha's teachings. I have been a soft lay buddhist for almost a year now. I am sure that it is one of the best ways to develop as a being, as well as help others, although some deep stuff about shunyatta still confuses and eludes me. However, I am also sure that "other religions" (in quotation marks since it is debatable whether buddhism is a religion) also have a lot of wisdom to teach, help and love to give. This exerpt from The Triple Refuge, by Sayagi U Chit Tin made me worry: "Taking refuge will be broken for ordinary people when they die, but this breaking is blameless and does not bring bad results. On the other hand, breaking the taking of the Triple Refuge during one's life is very serious. This is broken whenever a person goes for refuge to a teacher outside the Buddha's Dispensation or when a person is disrespectful to the Triple Gem." It seems to me that after taking refuge, if you go to other religions and religious teachers for their teachings on how to develop further down the path, it would be a bad thing (the author does not seem to say why this is a problem nor what happens if you do it). So, is it possible to take refuge, follow the buddhist path to nibbana and still to other religions for help with the path? What about religions that directly contradict buddhist teachings or precepts?

What would be considered a religious experience in Buddhism in the same way,for example, Moses' experience with the burning bush of God? Would it be the Buddha's enlightenment itself or a bodhisattva's interaction with Buddha?

Does any Buddhist tradition have an explicit prohibition on participating in the rituals and practices of other religions? Are there any rules about entering other religions' holy places?