In Hindu cosmology, time is divided into four Yugas (Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali), with Satya Yuga, the first epoch described as a kind of utopian golden age and Kali Yuga as an age of decline and moral degradation—the one we are said to be living in now. My question is: - Does Buddhism have a similar concept of cyclical ages, especially a notion of a "golden age" vs. an "age of decline"? - If so, how is this described in Buddhist texts?

In this answer , a user writes: > The Buddhist scriptures attributed to the Buddha contain > contradictions, obvious frauds, obvious later-day insertions, etc., > therefore there can be no scriptural authority in Buddhism; apart from > what can be verified for oneself as being true & real that leads to > the ending of suffering. This raises the question:- How can one objectively determine which parts of the Buddhist scriptures, particularly the suttas are likely to be original teachings of the Buddha, and which may be later interpolations or corruptions? What criteria are used in this process? Are there scholarly or traditional methods that help identify interpolations, such as historical analysis, linguistic patterns, consistency with core teachings, or comparisons across early textual traditions? Additionally, how can we be sure that what some modern practitioners or scholars label as later additions were not already part of the original oral tradition? Why could some of these elements not be understood through reinterpretation rather than being dismissed outright? Are there critical editions of the suttas or major academic resources that address this issue? I am interested in perspectives based on traditional commentaries, scriptural analysis, and modern scholarship.

Ānanda, the earth rests on water, the water rests on air, and the air rests on space. When a great wind blows, the water is stirred, which in turn causes the earth to shake—resulting in an earthquake **Is that scientifically accurate regarding how the Earth is *structured*? And *cause* for earthquake**

I’ve heard many people say that Buddhist texts refer to a flat Earth. Is it true that Buddhism considers the Earth to be flat? Please give an unbiased answer.

In various sources belonging to non Buddhist traditions that have historically been rivals to Buddhism like Vedanta and Nyaya, one often finds claims that their philosophers defeated Buddhist thinkers in formal debates. These accounts are often cited to highlight the intellectual strength and argumentative success of their respective schools over buddhism. I am interested in knowing whether Buddhist sources such as texts or inscriptions contain similar records of Buddhist scholars successfully engaging and defeating prominent non-Buddhist philosophers from vedanta or nyaya backgrounds in philosophical debates. Are there any such documented instances from the Buddhist side, and if so, could you provide references or examples?

What are most authentic scriptures within the buddhist tradition? Do all sub sects of buddhism believe in the same set of scriptures or are there differences there too?

I'm interested to know the academic consensus on Cleary's translation of The Blue Cliff Record. I've heard that his translations could be spotty at times, given that, how accurately has he depicted this text? To clarify: I want to know how closely Cleary's translation adheres to the original Blue Cliff Record, not how the Buddhist community regards it in terms of Buddhist practice.

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.

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?

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?

A few months ago I bought a four volume set of The Shobogenzo, translated by by Gudo Nishijima and Chodo Cross. In this set there was not only a translation of the Shobogenzo, but an interpretation of each chapter of the text in modern language. I found these interpretations extremely helpful in actually understanding the text, as a lot of the original language was quite obscure. Recently, I also picked up The Blue Cliff Record, translated by Thomas Cleary. However, in his text there are no direct interpretations of the chapters, and so I'm having trouble understanding some of them. I largely understand Zen itself, but the original language of The Blue Cliff Record often just doesn't seem to get to the point, or make that point clear. **So I'm wondering if any modern, English interpretations of The Blue Cliff Record exist?**

From wikipedia : Alara Kalama (Pāḷi & Sanskrit Āḷāra Kālāma/ Arāḍa Kālāma]), was a hermit and a teacher of SamkhyaHe was the first teacher of Gautama Buddha. I want to know ***which scriptures of samkhya philosophy were taught to buddha?*** Also was Buddha told characters of mahabharat /ramayan . Is it mentioned anywhere?

The Avataṃsaka Sūtra describes a cosmos of infinite universes upon universes, mutually containing one another. I know this scripture is taught in Huayan, Chan, and Pure Land sects, but are there any other Buddhist sects that teach this? The Avatamsaka Sutra and these sects teach that infinite universes are connected to a jeweled flower garland or net, and universes reflect each other.

In the below passage from MN 58 >In the same way, prince, the Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and pointless, and which is disliked by others. >The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and correct, but which is harmful and disliked by others. >The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is disliked by others. >The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and pointless, but which is liked by others. >The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and correct, but which is harmful, even if it is liked by others. >The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is liked by others. Why is that? Because the Realized One has compassion for sentient beings. There seem to be some (three?) couplets (and a triplet?): 'true/untrue', 'correct/false', 'beneficial/pointless/harmful', and 'likeable/dislikeable'. My reason for posting is to ask the difference between 'true' and 'correct', but if anyone has anything more general to say about these guidelines, that would also be appreciated.

I have heard that Lord Buddha wrote or discussed about the smallest indivisible particle i.e the atom. What exactly did he say. Is it mentioned in some scriptures? If yes, did he give any argument or detail of his observations.

I have seen that in Buddhist as well as Hindu traditions, parents are considered as benevolent beings who should be venerated and put in a pedestal. Stories, verses, and myths about praises for parents are plenty. However, toxic parenting must have been present in the past and surely there could be something about evil parents in some Buddhist teaching? Consider parents who are narcissist, control-freaks, irresponsible, or just plain unqualified to raise kids in a healthy manner. Parents who treat their children as their possessions and not independent beings should not receive the same praises, should they? There are enough parents who constantly put down and actively try to harm their own children. How could one say that such parents are saintly beings? How does the act of being a parent by simply giving birth and doing the bare minimum that everyone does makes someone a noble person? Almost everybody in the world would be noble by that definition. Don't children who had bad parenting deserve more compassion and respect? Could someone point me to Buddhist stories and teachings, and mantras/verses talking about the evils of megalomaniac and narcissist individuals who are terrible parents? ---------- Related posts: 1. Relationship with bad parents (kamma and issues) 1. How should a Buddhist approach honoring parents who abused them? 1. Must I continue a relationship with my abusive parents? 1. I want to leave my mother 1. What does Buddhism teach about abusive parents? 1. Not listening to parents is bad karma? 1. I need an answer as to why i received a mother who makes me feel like an outcaste? 1. What did Buddha say about dysfunctional families for novice practitioners?

According to this answer : > 31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are > infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be > similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of > beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally > rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be > reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places > every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live > in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the > lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such > being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The > cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the > same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would > believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the > universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a > few of the great disciples may have managed to do this. Can anyone expand on this, or simplify it?

> A soul from a previous generation is reincarnated in a later > generation into a specific set of circumstances which are tailored to > engineer a rectification of a previous sin Are there instances in Buddhist scripture or history where there is a confirmation of the above statement as being typical, or being the purpose, of reincarnation? Don't know if sin prefigures in Buddhist thought or has connections to reincarnation, but the source of the quote above is drawn from Judaism and Kabbalah's conceptualization of reincarnation, which they do relate to sin.

Do Buddhist teachings or scripture say anywhere whether or not a reincarnated soul has memory of their past lives? Referenced passages are encouraged.

If reincarnation were true, in that a soul takes on different human bodies across several different lives during that soul's existence, have philosophers, theologists, scholars or any scriptures ever indicated whether one of those lives is the true identity of that soul? Or is it implicitly always assumed that the first life or incarnation of that soul is its true identity?