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?

In a number of the books I'm reading on Buddhism, and in a number of talks I've heard on the subject, I repeatedly encounter the idea that the Buddha "saw the Dhamma" or that he "witnessed Dhamma" or the like. Other times, I've heard/read that the Buddha "saw" beings dying and taking rebirth, or that he "saw" the reality of anicca, dukkha, anatta, and the Four Noble Truths, etc. I'm having difficulty understanding what this all means. Is this metaphorical sight? Is it literal sight, in the sense of a vision or dream? In terms of our own meditation practices, when we are told that we should "see" certain things, e.g. seeing a nimitta, should we expect something similar? Metaphorical "sight"? Literal sight? Something else entirely? Thanks!

What is the Buddhist view on crying? I don't remember hearing or reading about the Buddha ever crying. Is crying a consequence of "lack of understanding" of the ultimate reality?

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.

I am a Hindu and I believe that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha in beginning period of Kaliyug and purpose of his incarnation was to avoid sufferings caused in society by misinterpretation of vedas. So,he rejected vedas. > Mahabharat shanti parva Chapter 348 > > Then at the beginning of Kali Yuga he took refuge in the tree of the > king of brahmins He lived in **the house of the king of righteousness > in fear of Magadha He was dressed in brown clothes, shaved and had > white teeth. I, the Buddha, the son of Shuddhodana, shall bewitch men. > The Sudras are enjoyed among the pure when I have attained Buddhahood. > All men will be enlightened and covered with saffron.** At times of Mahabharat ,Krishna told that Dwarka will drown and he will return as Buddha in Kaliyug. ***What I want to ask :Are there any Buddhist sects or subsects that believe that Hindu scriptures particularly the Vedas were true in original form and got interpolated .So,they need to follow new message and reject Vedas so they require change to Buddhism or Vedas were divinely inspired but got misinterpreted /interpolated or lost original form or any similar belief of divine revelation in Vedas .***

I was wondering if for example an obsession or craving that someone has for attaining Nirvana would be considered something unwholesome. On one hand it seems to me like it would, since that person would be reinforcing the habit of craving, but on the other hand how else could they actually achieve the goal? Like for example how could they decide to become a monk and devote themselves fully to the practice etc. I don't think the Buddha would have left his palace if he wasn't motivated by *some* sort of craving, at least in the beginning.

I've watched on t.v that a monk had dreamt that Lama told him a lady will come to monastery and will request him let her with them when this was only for monks though he going to let her with them and teach Dhamma. Next day it happens what he had dreamt about; first he disagreed but later on he remembered his dream last night he had and then she became nun. So does dreams making sense ? I had one on full moon day that I'm crying next Buddha's statue in vihara saying give me power and peace.

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?

There’s a new theory, which I saw many Vaiṣṇava groups propagating, of the 2 buddhas: Viṣṇu incarnate Ādi Buddha and the other being Śākyamuni of Buddhism, as two seperate personalities, based on the differences in Buddha stories from the Vaiṣṇava texts and Śākyamuni’s story in Buddhist texts. I have briefly talked about it in the addendum to this answer as well. They cite the details mentioned in the Bhāgvata Puruāṇa to claim that Viṣṇu-incarnate Buddha was a different person born centuries before the Gautama Buddha, gave teachings of compassion and leaving animal slaughter, then centuries later Siddhārtha came to bodh gaya, gained enlightenment there as the place had increased spiritual potency. To Quote from this article - > tatah kalau sampravritte sammohaya sura-dvisham > buddho namnanjana-sutah kikateshu bhavishyati > (srimad-bhagavatam 1.3.24) > > “Thereafter, in the twenty-first manvantara at the beginning of > Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as **Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, > in Kikata Pradesa (the province of present day Gaya-Bihar)**, just for the purpose > of deluding those who are envious of the faithful demigods.” As anyone can see that the stated birth place does not coincide with the Birth place of the historical Gautama Buddha. To supposedly reconcile this apparent contradiction, they cite the theory that the Vishnu incarnate buddha was a different person from Gautama buddha for which they cite the following proof- > Thus, Sugata Buddha and Sunyavadi (Sakyasimha) Buddha are not the same > person. Further evidence is found in Mr. H.T.Colebrooke’s Amarakosha, > published at Ramapura in 1807. It is written in Chapter 21, Page 178 > of Lalitavistara-grantha that Gautama Buddha performed penances at the > same place as the previous Buddha (Vishnu-avatara Buddha). Maybe it is > for this reason that in later ages he and Lord Buddha are considered > as being one: > > esha dharanimunde purvabuddhasanasthah > samartha dhanurgrihitva sunya nairatmavanaih > klesaripum nihatva drishtijalanca bhitva-siva > virajamsokam prapsyate bodhimagryam What's more to support this notion, they cite even a Buddhist text named Lankavatara-sutra - > There is an authentic Buddhist book, Lankavatara-sutra, in which > Ravana, the king of Lanka, prays to Jina’s son, the ancient Lord > Buddha, and to all the Buddhas and Buddhas’ sons who would appear in > the future, via this eulogy (stava): > > atha ravano lankadhipatih gathagiten anugayati sma > lankavatarasutram vaih purvabuddhanuvarnitam > smarami purvakaih buddhairjinaputra-puraskritaih > putrametannigadyate bhagavanapi bhashatam > bhavishyantyanapate kale buddha buddhasutasca ye > > Therefore, this source leaves no doubt that the ancient avatara-Buddha > and the modern Gautama Buddha are not the same person. Questions - 1. As I saw from the Answers of this question , there is indeed a conception of many Buddhas in the Buddhist literature. Does any of the buddhist literature mention any account one of the former buddhas taking birth in Present Day Gaya (Kikata-pradesa)? 2. Since it is Gaya alone where Gautama Buddha attained enlightenment, Does Gautama buddha mention any of the former buddhas taking birth in that place in any of his discourses? As the Buddha was omniscient, he would have certainly known about the former buddhas and if any of them had actually taken birth in kikata pradesa (aka present day Gaya).

I was reading an article about *The Samaññaphala Sutta* and came across this line: *This [sutta] is placed in juxtaposition to the Buddhist view of the teachings of rival philosophical teachers of the time, showing how the Buddha — in contradistinction to the inflexible, party-line approach of his contemporaries — presented his teaching in a way that was pertinent and sensitive to the needs of his listeners.* Who were these "contemporaries" and what were they teaching?

If consciousness/awareness as the 5th skandha is impermanent (?), shouldn't it cease to exist when entering Paranirvana? But in SN 22.53 the Buddha says: > "If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then > owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there > is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, > not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it > is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its > contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is > totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the > holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this > world.'" Here cuddlyable3 answers with a quote which says that: > - Damien Keown states: Nirvana [...] involves a radically transformed state of consciousness which is free of the obsession with ‘me and > mine’ > - when a person attains nirvana, they are liberated from ordinary rebirth. When such a person dies, their physical body disintegrates > and their consciousness is said to be completely liberated. They are > not reborn in the ordinary sense. Their consciousness does not take > rebirth into a physical form > - terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in the case of an Arahant, because those things—matter, sensation, perception, mental > activities, consciousness—with which the terms like ‘born’ and ‘not > born’ are associated, are completely destroyed and uprooted, never to > rise again after his death Doesn't the last point contradict with the others? For me it makes much sense that consciousness is that which gets enlightened and that Nirvana is the state of free, liberated consciousness. I mean if everything what I am, even consciousness, which I think I ultimately am, vanishes, why should I pursue enlightenment then? Thank you.