In Udana 8.3 , The following passage is to be seen- > There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks > there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could > not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. > But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, > therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and > conditioned. I have seen many individuals on the internet quote this passage from the sutta to state Buddha directly affirmed the existence of A Theistic God. For Instance, A Non-dual, Vedanta Leaning Blogger Claims here - > **A closer reading of the Buddhist texts reveals that the Buddha did > actually acknowledge in many places the existence of what in Vedanta > would be called ‘The Self’ (Sanskrit: Atman) and what others may even > call God. Here is just one example from the Nibbana Sutta verse 3 > (Udana 8.3), which is from the Pali Canon:** > > There is, bhikkhus [monks], that which is unborn, that which is > unmanifest [or has not come into being], that which is not > fabricated/created, that which is unconditioned. > > If there were not, bhikhus, that which is unborn, that which is > unmanifest, that which is not fabricated/created, that which is > unconditioned, there would not be escape from that which is born, from > that which is manifest, from that which is fabricated/created, from > that which is conditioned – that therefore would not have been clearly > known/experienced/seen. > > But because, bhikhus, there is indeed that which is unborn, that which > is unmanifest, that which is not fabricated/created, that which is > unconditioned, therefore escape from that which is born, from that > which is manifest, from that which is fabricated, from that which is > conditioned, is [or can be] clearly known/experienced/seen. > > **We can clearly see that the Buddha is categorically stating that there > is something that is beyond birth and creation, beyond manifestation > and that which is conditioned (ie. all objects).** Similiarly A Baha’i writer uses Ud 8.3 to argue Buddhism implies a transcendent God behind liberation here > **The understanding that God chooses us echoes throughout every > religion. In Judaism, it is God who carries His people on eagles’ > wings and brings them to Himself (Exodus 19:4). In Christianity, it is > God, who with His amazing grace, “saves a wretch like me.” In Islam it > is God who brings us out from the depths of darkness into light: and > it is He who is full of mercy to those who believe (Qur’an 33:43). In > Hinduism, the greatest proponent of Vaishnavism to the West in my > lifetime, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami wrote: “We can only understand > Krsna by acquiring the grace of Krsna,” and in Buddhism, it is very > clear that God, the “unborn, unarisen, and unconditioned” is the One > who frees us, for as Buddhist scripture says:** > > Were there not an unborn, unarisen, and unconditioned, there would be > no escape for those born, arisen and conditioned. Because there is > the unborn, unarisen, unconditioned, there is escape for those born, > arisen, and conditioned. – Udana, 8.3. > > **Salvation is not something we achieve on our own; it is given to be > achieved.** Is there any merit to these claims? Is this Sutta really implying the existence of an Unborn Theistic God, Without whose grace we cannot attain liberation?

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 *Cracking The Walnut: Understanding the Dialectics of Nagarjuna*, Thich Nhat Hanh explains how in the four conditions out of which a phenomenon arises (seed condition, continuity condition, object of cognition as condition, supportive condition) we can not find the self-nature of the phenomenon itself. The text which he is explaining, The Verses on the Middle Way by Nagarjuna, conclude this about the matter: > 3. The self-nature of phenomena \ is not found in the conditions. \ Since there is no self-nature, \ how could there be an other-nature? To illustrate this point Thich Nhat Hanh uses the example of fire. > For example, we may look for the self-nature of a flame in a box of matches. In the box are matches made of wood and sulfur. Outside the box is oxygen. When we search inside the wood, sulfur, and oxygen can we find the self-nature of the flame? Whether the match has already been lit or not, we cannot find this self-nature. What we call the self-nature of something cannot be found in its conditions at all. My question is, how can Nagarjuna make the leap that because self-nature is not found in the causes or grounds out of which a phenomenon arises that therefore said phenomenon does not possess self-nature? For instance, if we at first assume that objects possess a separate self-nature and we take the example of ice instead of fire, we see that the conditions out of which ice arises (freezing temperatures, water, air pressure) do seem to possess something resembling the self-nature of their product. This is why I am confused when Thich Nhat Hanh uses the example of fire to illustrate the point -- surely there are other phenomena, like ice, which don't fit the rule?

What is the acceptability of the Jataka literature across various Buddhist traditions? Please answer with references from both traditional and modern perspectives if possible.

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.

What are the actual suttas in which the Buddha described how to meditate? A list of all such suttas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

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**

In traditional Buddhist texts, Solar and lunar eclipses are often seen as being caused by a demon named Rāhu who attempts to seize the sun or moon, as seen for example in the SN 2.9 and 2.10 where the Buddha speaks of Rāhu releasing the sun or moon after the Buddha’s intervention. This is pretty similar to the mythical explanation of eclipses found in Hindu puranas. Today in light of modern science, eclipses are understood as natural events governed by the movement and alignment of the earth, moon, and sun. There is no magical phenomenon behind it and no gods or demons involved. Is there room within Buddhist philosophy for integrating or accepting the astronomical explanation of eclipses, or would that be seen as rejecting scriptural authority?

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 have heard Buddhist literature Mentions Maha Brahma, a diety attributed with creation but he is still held as a conditioned being. Does any literature of the buddhist canon (Any tripitaka or sutta) mention vishnu or shiva as deities? If so, what position are they accorded? Are they held to be conditioned beings similar to Brahma or something else?

I hope this finds you well and happy. Over the last 25 years I have been trying to apply the instructions from the Buddha on how to study his teaching to keep it pure, found in the Pali Early Buddhist Texts. In my documents linked below, I try to resolve glaring inconsistencies in the Pali text, from the perspective that the Buddha is the unexcelled teacher and does not need help from disciples to teach. You will need a google account to view them: My comparison of up to 54 possible variations in the gradual Path (the Fourth Noble Truth) found in the Pali Texts: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acDIhERcjDfGYof2v45tqdXOipIh09_OYUfHwXWpVTY/edit?usp=sharing My theory of early and late Buddhist Teachings (covering all Four Noble Truths): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CE8ycGuHdOBI96wzOiZt2Da1QWHclb2BCR-b1BwZEGs/edit?usp=sharing I'd be interested to hear of other similar work, because I'd like to associate and discuss with people who show at least the easiest to recognise Fruit of Stream Entry, taking the Buddha as their only teacher. That is, I'm seeking the Noble Community. Bhikkhu Sujato et al's 2014 study: Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf only wants to present the case, there is NO evidence of **major** doctrinal change in the EBTs. I'm not interested in people preaching or 'soap boxing' to me, the standard interpretations of doctrines, which I would call dogma. I was a Theravada monk for 20 years. So I am very familiar with them. This pushing of dogma is usually done in the style: 'this is the truth style'/'the Buddha taught this' etc. I'm interested in authentic discussion where people apply the training for his disciples ascribed to the Buddha of 'do not say this is the truth' but rather 'I believe this is the truth', called 'safeguarding the truth' MN 95 and is expressing one's view as one's view, as it really is. I understand this to be an insight practice and found it eradicates arrogance. The difference might better be understood by the difference in: 'the world is flat' - pushed by some organisations and 'I believe the world is flat' - someone expressing their belief realistically. I appreciate facts such as, the Noble Eightfold Path appears x times in the EBTs, but not quoting scripture to push the standard view, as my research shows there are likely many corrupted ideas in the EBTs. For me, agreement with the large body of consistent words of the Buddha, is a higher standard than the number of times an idea occurs. best wishes Joe

Which scriptures describe the jhanas of Buddhism?

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?

This is one of my main concerns. What did Buddha actually mean by 'kalpa'? I know Buddha said that the Earth will die by fire, and then all beings will be born in the Abhasara loka. I think this may refer to the sun expanding in the next 5 billion years, meaning the Earth could remain suitable for life for around 5 to 8 billion years (totally). So, how does this apply to the calculation of a kalpa? Did Buddha use extraordinary examples to teach how long this time period is? If not, what about the extremely long year examples? What are the types of kalpas? I need a trustworthy answer because this is one of the main arguments in Buddhism.

How authentic is the buddhist text named Lankavatara sutra and what exactly is the acceptability of the text across various denominations of buddhism?

In the book: '*Origins Of Om Mani padme Hum A Study Of The Karandavyuha Sutra *', Alexander Studholme mentions a hymn to Avalokitesvara that curiously carries several epithets commonly associated with Vishnu and Shiva such as Hari,Narasimha, Nilakantha, sankara etc. How would a buddhist explain these epithets in relation to Avalokitevara? Does this mean the deity was appropriated from the Puranic fold by appropriating the qualities of vishnu/shiva within it?

Let me paraphrase it as best I can. There was a youth named Shining Countenance who approached the Tathagata. He prostrated to him and circumambulated him 7 times. "My Lord I am going on a journey and I fear for my safety." The blessed one spoke. "There is a Buddha realm called "Shaking All Defilements." In that realm exists a Tathagata, an Arahant a fully enlightened Buddha named "Buddha Subsequent Conduct." Remember this Buddha, prostrate to him, pray to him and you will have no fear on your journey and your goals will be met."

I am looking for some books/textual references which describe in detail the meditative experiences of advanced practitioners of Buddhism, their experiences with Śūnyatā and the realisation of anatta. It can be the experiences of the Buddha, experiences of the Buddha's senior disciples, experiences of followers who lived during the Buddha's time, or experiences of contemporary Buddhists. Any help would be much appreciated.

I find it difficult to assign a meaning to the word 'rebirth'. Here are some hints that rebirth might not be real: - Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs" - Those views are ascribed to non-Buddhist ascetics - Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions" - The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth? - If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience; is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)? Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream? - [This web site](http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm) (which seems to be Thai) says that rebirth is a "parable" for "simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha". It says that "Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person" and "This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism." The end of that page suggest that people "lower themselves into hell" or "rise to the Enlightened state of the Buddha" *in this life*. I think I remember reading, sometime in the distant past, than when someone asked the Buddha about the afterlife, he replied "I'm not here to talk to you about the afterlife: I'm here to talk to you about *this* life." Is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about? And/or is it a non-core part of Buddhism: something which some Buddhists believe and other Buddhists don't, a local/cultural viewpoint? The article [Two Main Schools of Buddhism](http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/59.htm) says, > The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows: > - Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher. - The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools. - The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. - The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the same in both schools. - Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world. - Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference. A belief in rebirth (even Karma) isn't especially on this list. I think I agree that the above are essential: that the historical Buddha talked about them, and that they're a necessary part of Buddhist belief. I agree that tales of rebirth and of other lives feature in some Buddhist literature, e.g. Mahayana literature seems to have the Buddha being reborn. I don't know a lot about Buddhism so, please, if you answer with a paraphrase of scripture, please include the name of the scripture you're quoting so that I could look it up.