So I've been thinking about how in scripture, Buddha often refers to certain views as the "extremes". A famous example is the eternalists (eternal soul and afterlife) vs the annihilationists (no soul, no afterlife, pure materialists). The Buddha taught both of these as the two extremes and promotes a Middle Way. But is Buddha's own approach not a form of extermism? Consider the following: one extreme that I will call eliminationists (suffering is intrinsically bad and is to be completely eradicated - this is Buddha) vs masochists (suffering is to be sought out and maximized as much as humanly possible). The Middle Way here would be "We do not like suffering (though that does not make it bad or evil by itself), but it has important functions and is in some ways, simply inevitable as long as one is actively "alive" in any conceivable way, so we should seek to reasonably reduce unnecessary suffering as judged by us, but re-orienting the entire society for the sole goal of eliminating suffering can lead to other negatives and extreme behaviour". Why should we eliminate rather than lessen suffering? Isn't that one extreme (other being actively seeking out as much suffering as possible)? I can list many ways in which obsession with harm reduction can lead to a highly dysfunctional society and worsen conditions of many people. So why does the Buddha actively promote the Middle Way for other positions, but does not apply it for his own?

I came across this contemplation in [DN 22](https://suttacentral.net/dn22/en/sujato#5.3) : > It’s as if there were a bag with openings at both ends, filled with various kinds of grains, such as fine rice, wheat, mung beans, peas, sesame, and ordinary rice. And a person with clear eyes were to open it and examine the contents: ‘These grains are fine rice, these are wheat, these are mung beans, these are peas, these are sesame, and these are ordinary rice.' > > And so they meditate observing an aspect of the body internally … What kind of wholesome qualities on the 8-fold noble path does contemplating the bodies of people like sacks of different grains of rice and wheat inspire? Like sinews, muscle tissue, synovial fluid, neural tissue, skeleton. Contemplating this rotten body as a sack of grains in a linen bag, just like one the Buddha would have seen being carried around when he was a child 3000 years ago in India? Picture this, young Buddha seeing someone on the street by his palace, carrying a sack of rice for cooking a meal for him, and seeing the cooks in the kitchen? Thanks. sukhi hontu

One of my main problems with Indian religions has always been cult-like and occult-like practices that is present in it, especially Hinduism. I thought Buddhism, given what Buddha taught, would be immune to it but it doesn't seem so. Vajrayana consists of weird mantra chantings, doing of taboo stuff like alcohol and sexual orgies. Many Buddhists online seem to say "Oh no no, it is not just about sex. Westerners are misinterpreting it!" but sex DOES seem to be a huge part of tantra and therefore Vajrayana. Whereas Buddhism teaches self-restraint, Vajrayana teaches doing sexual orgies and chanting mantras and remembering aweful looking deities while doing it. The practices are esoteric and has to be done under the guidance of a guru. This is seriously cult 101. You can study anthropology and religious studies, almost every single cult revolves around these kind of practices. A lot of abuse happen under these things - there are gurus who pretend that the illicit sex they are having with disciples or consorts or children are not bad but part of the 'path to enlightenment' and in the process simply use their influence to get sex and rape/groom people. One of the reasons despite being born in a Hindu family I distanced myself from Hinduism was the, what Abrahamic religions would call, 'demonic' practices - strange rituals, gods who are immoral and make people do immoral things, leads to insanity, frauds and immorality, esotericism, etc. Abrahamics already have a very negative view of Hinduism and Buddhism, and things like tantra and Vajrayana are definitely not helping. Why is such a school of practice allowed in Buddhism?

The Varnashrama dharma (caste system) is the backbone of Brahminism (Hinduism), untouchability is a part of that social order. We all know that Gautama Buddha was against Varnashrama dharma, and rejected the Vedic religion. But unfortunately, we see caste system and untouchability in many 'Buddhist' countries. For example, the Burakumin/Eta in Japan, Baekjeong in Korea, Ragyabpa in Tibet, etc. As we know as Buddhists that the Buddha was no hindu, then why this system is also in the societies of Buddhist countries?

Nāgārjuna is often presented as systematizing or radicalizing insights already present in the Buddha’s early teachings, particularly pratītyasamutpāda and anattā.At the same time, his use of dialectical negation appears to go beyond anything explicitly stated in the early Nikāyas/Āgamas. In the early texts, dependent origination functions primarily as a causal and soteriological teaching aimed at the cessation of suffering, while ontological questions are frequently bracketed or treated pragmatically. Nāgārjuna, by contrast, seems to universalize dependent origination into a comprehensive critique of svabhāva (intrinsic existence), applying it not only to persons but to dharmas themselves. ---------- This raises several interpretive questions:- - To what extent can Nāgārjuna’s claim that “whatever is dependently arisen is empty” be grounded directly in the Buddha’s early teachings, rather than representing a later philosophical development responding to Abhidharma realism? - Does Nāgārjuna preserve the Buddha’s pragmatic and liberative intent, or does his systematic negation risk reifying emptiness into a metaphysical position precisely what the Buddha sought to avoid? - Is Nāgārjuna’s use of reductio arguments best understood as a philosophical method absent from the early canon, or can it be seen as a formalization of the Buddha’s dialogical strategies (e.g., the Kaccānagotta Sutta’s rejection of existence and non-existence)?

Is it true that the Buddha will never be a woman? If so, why is this? To be specific, I am particularly asking whether or not the Buddha itself can be female. I am *not* asking whether a woman can become a Buddha in her future life.

In Kd 6 , We come across the following:- > On one occasion a monk was possessed by a spirit. His teacher and > preceptor who were nursing him were not able to cure him. He then went > to a pigs’ slaughterhouse to eat raw meat and drink blood. As a > result, he became well. They told the Buddha. > > “For one who is possessed, I allow raw meat and raw blood.” I had never heard of this before. I only encountered it because a polemical blog quoted it in an attempt to criticize Buddhist scripture by highlighting passages that seem negative or problematic when taken at face value. Since their intent of quoting the above was obviously hostile I’d like to understand the background of these from those familiar with the Vinaya:- My questions are: 1. Is the translation accurate? Does the Pali genuinely say that the Buddha allowed raw meat and raw blood in such circumstances? 2. Is this passage considered authentic and canonical within mainstream Theravāda? 3. If both of the above are true, How is this interpreted by traditional Buddhists today? Is it taken literally, regarded as a narrowly defined medicinal or exceptional allowance, or understood in some other way? And if it is accepted, how is it justified within Buddhist ethics and discipline?

Years ago I came across a Sanskrit term that described the exchange or interaction of a buddhist and art. I am desperate to remember that term. It described engaging with art work in the present moment as though the piece was alive in you and you were alive in the piece. The term defined a mutual exchange of presence. Can anyone help me with recalling this term?

Does the Buddha explain anywhere why the mind is capable to be unskillful and cause suffering for itself in the first place? Specifically, why do we become attached, and why do we crave things? Does the Buddha ever acknowledge that these mechanisms can be helpful? Does he ever describe our ability to become attached or to crave things as mere design errors? Or are these things just left unjudged and taken as axiomatic starting points, without ever trying to describe their origin or their larger place in the world?

What is the most important thing or idea about Buddhism? "The Buddha dealt with that which is most important", compared to the other spiritual traditions, according Rupert Sheldrake. So, what is most important in Buddhism?

Does the Buddha ever instruct us to meditate for the sake of meditation's immediate and temporary benefits? If we see meditation as a car for gaining insights and understanding, but also as a tool for improving our focus or mood or (non)reactivity - does the Buddha ever explicitly urge us to meditate for the latter effects?

What is the exact number of original jataka tales? If we look around we see Jataka tales, panchatantra, Esop's fables and many others are all mixed up. Where can I read original Jataka tales online?

Mahamaya is the birth mother of Siddhartha. After her death, after giving birth, she is said to have gone to the God Realm of the 33 where later she received teachings from the Buddha. She is also said to have grieved his parinirvana in a sutra I cannot find and visited him on earth at that time. Did she become an Arhat or attain other realizations after receiving teahings as was the case with other disciples of the Buddha?

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**

Am I right that Gauthama Budda did not teach to worship the Hindu Gods? Did he teach not to worship them? Maybe my questions sound stupid to a Buddhist but I am practising Islam and do not know very much about Buddhism. Peace be with you, and thank you for you help.

I’m interested in understanding the religious and devotional practices that may have been part of Siddhartha Gautama's life before he undertook his renunciate life and became the Buddha. Specifically: Are there any historical or textual references indicating that Siddhartha Gautama himself, or members of his immediate family (such as his father Suddhodana, mother Māyā etc), participated in worship of deities or followed any theistic religious practices prior to his renunciation? If so, which deities were venerated, and are there any specific suttas, commentaries, or canonical sources that mention this? Additionally, was deity worship a common practice within the socio-religious environment of Kapilavastu at that time? I’m looking for references from early Buddhist texts (Pāli Canon, Āgamas, or later commentarial traditions if relevant) or scholarly interpretations that shed light on this aspect.

Recently, I came across an intriguing opinion - Buddha did not believe in rebirth and that his views on the topic stem from some fake suttas. It sparked a thought in my mind that I believe strongly contradict this viewpoint. I wanted to share it with you, and also open it for counter arguments. The argument is structured as follows: if rebirth does not exist, we only live one life, and once we die, we cease to exist. Therefore, what motivation would a person have to renounce worldly attachments and endure the hardships of seeking enlightenment? One might argue that individuals pursue enlightenment to alleviate their suffering. However, it's worth noting that many people lead relatively comfortable lives, experiencing only brief periods of discomfort and ultimately facing death. In fact, those in higher social strata often enjoy luxurious lives and many find fulfillment in them. Given this context, there is no objective reason for them to even considering renouncing their comfortable existence in pursuit of enlightenment? Therefore, if there is no rebirth, enlightenment becomes optional - much like learning mathematics, whcih although is beautiful, is nonetheless optional. We could potentially choose to live our lives and simply "power through" until the end, and be done forever. Or even worse, kill self and be “at peace” forever. If that were a solution, Buddha (assuming he was smart and well intentioned) would have proposed pursuit of enlightenment only to people in bad mental/physical conditions - but he did it universally - which says that its not true. This reasoning is quite convincing to me. I would appreciate hearing any arguments towards non-existence of rebirth and significance of enlightenment assuming it. Your insights are very much appreciated.

Did the Buddha ever said something like this: > What the world sees as pleasure, it is suffering for me. What the world sees as suffering, it is pleasure for me. Or something similar in the meaning, in any canonical texts?

Is there any record of the longest period the historical Buddha stayed in meditation? I have heard rumors ranging from many days to many weeks. Also when? Prior to his first sermon or after?